Affiliation:
1. Loyola Marymount University
2. Loyola College in Maryland
Abstract
In an attempt to involve drug-related defendants in treatment, California's Proposition 36 constrains judges' discretion to restrict access to treatment and to revoke treatment. Despite its formal rule scheme, judges nevertheless develop and implement strategies to coerce and persuade defendants into treatment compliance. Proposition 36 is an unexplored setting for examining the externally and interactionally imposed limits on judicial discretion and attempts by judges to reclaim it. This article describes strategies judges use in response to defendant noncompliance and shows how the alternatives available to defendants further constrain judicial attempts at coercion. While judges would rather find a way to make treatment work, ultimately defendants can opt out of treatment by choosing incarceration. Ironically, incarceration may be preferred by defendants because it may be a less onerous alternative. This perception constitutes an important interactional impediment to the judge's treatment option and significantly constrains judicial strategies to enhance treatment outcomes.
Subject
Urban Studies,Sociology and Political Science,Anthropology,Language and Linguistics
Reference62 articles.
1. Adler, P. 1996. Dealing careers. In In their own words: Criminals on crime, edited by P. Cromwell , 168-79. Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing Company.
2. An Integration of Theories to Explain Judicial Discretion
3. Police Discretion in Emergency Apprehension of Mentally Ill Persons
Cited by
17 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献