National Amphetamine-Type Stimulant Strategy Background Paper

More documents

Recommendations

Info

130 heroin) (Payne et al., 2007). In response, Australia has experienced a significant growth in criminal justice initiatives aimed specifically at addressing the drugs/crime nexus. These initiatives encompass a broad range of interventions that are commonly referred to as diversion initiatives because they aim to divert offenders from the criminal justice system. In broad terms, diversion involves the re-direction of offenders away from conventional criminal justice processes, with the aim of minimising their level of contact with the formal system (Payne et al., 2007). In its purest form, ‘diversion’ applies to those processes that occur at the pre-apprehension stage prior to any formal charges being laid and are focused on diverting individuals from the criminal justice system rather than referring to an alternative form of processing (Payne et al., 2007). One example is informal police cautioning whereby individuals, instead of being apprehended and charged, are given a verbal warning with no further obligations placed on the offender and no official record kept of the contact. Over the decades, the term has acquired broader application and is now commonly used to refer to any processing option that offers what is perceived to be a different and less punitive response than what would otherwise have applied (Payne et al., 2007). In addition, there is now a much greater emphasis on diverting individuals to an alternative program rather than simply diverting them from the system (Payne et al., 2007). Over the past decade, diversion programs have been implemented in every State and Territory, and there are currently five main types of drug-crime diversionary programs in use across Australia (Australian Institute of Criminology, 2004). Within these broad categories, there are a large number of possible interventions and each initiative can be implemented in different ways and in different combinations. The following provides a summary of the key stages and main intervention types: • Pre-arrest: when an offence is first detected, prior to a charge being laid. Diversionary measures here can include police discretion (e.g., offence detected but no action taken); an infringement notice (e.g., fine but no record); informal warning (no record); formal caution (verbal warning with record kept, but no further action); and caution plus intervention (i.e., warning and record, plus information or referral to an intervention program); • Pre-trial: when a charge is made but before the matter is heard at court. Measures can include treatment as a bail condition (e.g., no conviction if recorded if treatment program completed successfully); conferencing; and prosecutor discretion (e.g., treatment offered as alternative to proceeding with prosecution); • Pre-sentence: after conviction but before sentencing. Includes measures such as delay of sentence where the offender may be assessed or treated. The process can include sanctions for non-compliance and incentives such as no conviction recorded; • Post-conviction/sentence: as a part of sentencing. Diversionary measures here include suspended sentences of imprisonment requiring compliance with specific conditions (e.g., participation in treatment, abstinence from drugs, avoidance of specific associates, etc.); drug courts (i.e., judicially supervised or enforced treatment programs); and non-custodial sentences involving a supervised order, probation or bond requiring participation in treatment as part of a sentence; and
131 • Pre-release: prior to release on parole from detention or jail. Options include transfer to drug treatment (e.g., while still in custody, being transferred to a secure residential treatment program which is supervised 24 hours a day) and early release to treatment such that an inmate may be released early from detention into a structured, supervised treatment program. Diversion initiatives can be police-based, as with police drug diversion, or court-based, as with drug courts and intermediate court programs. Initiatives under the drug-crime diversionary programs can be divided into four groups, depending on their location along the criminal justice continuum, as follows: • Police drug diversion. At the front end sit the various police-based drug diversion programs. These offer drug education and assessment for those individuals with minor ‘possession’ offences pertaining to either cannabis and/or other illicit drugs. Police drug diversion programs are among the most common types of diversion. Police drug diversion is an alternative to the court system available to persons caught with illegal drugs. Instead of an offender being charged with a drug offence, they are cautioned by a police officer. Sometimes this caution also involves the offender having to attend an education or treatment session. Police diversion programs vary widely between jurisdictions. In some states and territories police can caution only first time offenders or juveniles. In other jurisdictions diversion is available for any offender caught with drugs, irrespective of age or criminal history; • Bail-based programs. As an intermediate response at the court level are the predominantly bail-based programs designed to provide assessment and short term treatment for less serious offenders whose criminal behaviour is related to their illicit drug use; • Drug courts. At the higher end of the court system are the intensive pre- and postsentencing Drug Court programs. These offer long term, intensive treatment for entrenched offenders whose drug dependence is a key contributor to their offending; and • Drug Treatment Correctional Centres. Drug Treatment Correctional Centres operate at the custodial level. To date, NSW is the only jurisdiction to have implemented this initiative. The NSW Compulsory Drug Treatment Correctional Centre specialises in abstinence-based treatment and rehabilitation for offenders with ‘long term illicit drug dependency and an associated life of crime and constant imprisonment’ (New South Wales Department of Corrective Services).
Page 1:
National Amphetamine-Type Stimulant
Page 4 and 5:
ii Acknowledgments This research wo
Page 6 and 7:
iv Table of contents Acknowledgemen
Page 8 and 9:
vi List of tables Table 1.1: Amphet
Page 10 and 11:
viii
Page 12 and 13:
2 The NDS framework and the Law Enf
Page 14 and 15:
4 Table 1.1: Amphetamine-type stimu
Page 16 and 17:
6 particularly on the Pacific Coast
Page 18 and 19:
8 Figure 1.1: MDMA (ecstasy) tablet
Page 20 and 21:
10 a 10-year period. While some of
Page 22 and 23:
12 Figure 1.4: Forms of methampheta
Page 24 and 25:
14 Figure 1.5: Median purity of met
Page 26 and 27:
16 As noted, the route of administr
Page 28 and 29:
18 Chapter 2: Setting the Context T
Page 30 and 31:
20 Figure 2.2: Prevalence of ecstas
Page 32 and 33:
22 19 years (Dunn et al., 2007). Th
Page 34 and 35:
24 The use of MDMA among police det
Page 36 and 37:
26 this survey is conducted with th
Page 38 and 39:
28 models might be useful. On the o
Page 40 and 41:
30 the questionnaire in February 20
Page 42 and 43:
32 2.5 Summary According to the lat
Page 44 and 45:
34 anxiety, agitation, tremor, teet
Page 46 and 47:
36 may be stronger than the link wi
Page 48 and 49:
38 Srisurapanot and colleagues (200
Page 50 and 51:
40 Psychiatric problems appear to o
Page 52 and 53:
42 In 2005, there was a total of 68
Page 54 and 55:
44 The most recent EDRS survey foun
Page 56 and 57:
46 same reasons they use the drugs
Page 58 and 59:
48 Shoptaw and Reback (2007) review
Page 60 and 61:
50 It has also been speculated that
Page 62 and 63:
52 Parental ATS use In addition to
Page 64 and 65:
54 The Minnesota Department of Heal
Page 66 and 67:
56 Chapter 4: Prevention and Harm R
Page 68 and 69:
58 should cover the full range of d
Page 70 and 71:
60 specific drug (Spoth et al., 200
Page 72 and 73:
62 be applied regularly and systema
Page 74 and 75:
64 Strategies targeting vulnerable
Page 76 and 77:
66 Examples of particular periods t
Page 78 and 79:
68 At-risk workplaces There is incr
Page 80 and 81:
70 The consultation forum with Abor
Page 82 and 83:
72 young people was noted in the su
Page 84 and 85:
74 and/or others); mental health ef
Page 86 and 87:
76 of the fact that frequently peop
Page 88 and 89:
78 Sexual risk behaviour is a furth
Page 90 and 91: 80 • Cleaning up; • Transport o
Page 92 and 93: 82 Assessing the risks of illicitly
Page 94 and 95: 84 4.4 Challenges of applying preve
Page 96 and 97: 86 but a number of studies are now
Page 98 and 99: 88 The pack included a video, train
Page 100 and 101: 90 Chapter 5: Treatment and Service
Page 102 and 103: 92 to the occurrence of amphetamine
Page 104 and 105: 94 In relation to the need for spec
Page 106 and 107: 96 These studies replicate earlier
Page 108 and 109: 98 addressed not only the drug user
Page 110 and 111: 100 Research conducted in the subse
Page 112 and 113: 102 users, data that may be general
Page 114 and 115: 104 that limit brain exposure to me
Page 116 and 117: 106 only significant difference was
Page 118 and 119: 108 through the use of antipsychoti
Page 120 and 121: 110 to develop the capacity of the
Page 122 and 123: 112 It was also suggested that link
Page 124 and 125: 114 as new evidence emerges. New ps
Page 126 and 127: 116 border in 2000 (McKetin et al.,
Page 128 and 129: 118 Table 6.1: Number of clandestin
Page 130 and 131: 120 Table 6.2: Examples of domestic
Page 132 and 133: 122 Tasmania In 2004, strengthened
Page 134 and 135: 124 Recommendations from the consul
Page 136 and 137: 126 Although there are a number of
Page 138 and 139: 128 illegal drugs. When incarcerate
Page 142 and 143: 132 Some examples of diversion prog
Page 144 and 145: 134 Other research has compared psy
Page 146 and 147: 136 Rehabilitation in Corrections T
Page 148 and 149: 138 Synthetic Drugs measure will im
Page 150 and 151: 140 • Stealing from motor vehicle
Page 152 and 153: 142 criminal offences There continu
Page 154 and 155: 144 • Increase international coll
Page 156 and 157: 146 • Ensuring offence and penalt
Page 158 and 159: 148 Law enforcement agencies are pl
Page 160 and 161: 150 Appendix 1 National consultatio
Page 162 and 163: 152 Appendix 2 Written submissions
Page 164 and 165: 154 Australian Institute of Health
Page 166 and 167: 156 Bowers, J. & Johnson, S. (2003)
Page 168 and 169: 158 Crits-Christoph, P., Siqueland,
Page 170 and 171: 160 Drug & Alcohol Services South A
Page 172 and 173: 162 Halkitis, P.N., Parsons, J.T.,
Page 174 and 175: 164 Hull, P., Rawstorne, P., Zablot
Page 176 and 177: 166 Leek, L., Seneque, D., & Ward,
Page 178 and 179: 168 McKetin, R., McLaren, J., Kelly
Page 180 and 181: 170 NSW Health (2006). Psychostimul
Page 182 and 183: 172 Ressler, K.J., & Nemeroff, C.B.
Page 184 and 185: 174 Small, W., Kerr, T., Charette,
Page 186 and 187: 176 United Nations Office for Drug
Page 188 and 189: 178
Page 190:
180
show all

National Amphetamine-Type Stimulant Strategy Background Paper

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?