Specializuoti teismai narkomanams

Abstract

Today there is no discussion between scientists about the existence of various links between drug use and involvement in crime, the link is well documented as is the failure of the traditional criminal justice system to break that link. For example in Lithuanian criminal code there are only two norms related to abuse of drugs – one of them enables courts to impose treatment to offender in a case prosecution of punishment is suspended; the other enables legal institutions to discharge the offender from punishment for illegal manufacture, acquisition and possession of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances in case one voluntary applies to legal institutions or health institutions for treatment or wants to submit drugs. The basic problem with the norm – one can use it only if the offender applies to the mentioned institutions voluntarily, and when there is no lawsuit against the offender. But there is no possibility in Lithuanian legal system to give treatment to the offender as the alternative to the punishment for the offences.
However, there are a number of alternatives to formal criminal justice system that can significantly reduce the criminal behaviour of these offenders through reducing their ongoing drug dependency. One of such alternatives is revealed in the article-drug courts.
The concept of drug courts originated and in the last ten years widely spread in a common law system in the USA. A drug court is a special court given the responsibility to handle cases involving drug-addicted offenders through an extensive supervision and treatment program. Participants of the program undergo long term (in medium from several months to 1 year) treatment and counselling, frequent testing for drugs, sanctions, incentives and frequent appearances before the court.
The key components of drug courts are:
• Drug courts integrate drug treatment services with justice system case processing;
• Using a nonadversarial approach, prosecution and defence counsel promote public safety while protecting participants’ due process rights;
• Eligible participants are identified early and promptly placed in the program;
• Drug courts provide access to a continuum of drug and other related treatment and rehabilitation services;
• Abstinence is monitored by frequent drug testing;
• A coordinated strategy governs drug court responses to participants’ compliance;
• Ongoing judicial interaction with each drug court participant is essential;
• Monitoring and evaluation measure the achievement of program goals and gauge effectiveness.
The author of the article makes a conclusion that the analysed drug courts could be successfully transformed into Lithuanian legal system but one needs to solve some technical legal and procedural problems: to legislate screening and assessment criteria (example, that the person could be admitted for the program if one is charged for the criminal offences, negligent crimes and intentional easy and medium crimes, if he is drug addict and the crime made was done because of addiction); to approve (for example by Health Ministry) which health institutions could give treatment to drug addicts and the procedure of doing it; the rights and obligations of a judge in drug court; to issue by legislative acts the court’s powers to sanction and reward offenders; to solve drug testing procedure and etc. Basic problems could arise for the judge while trying to work as a team, because the judge in such a court must be open to criticism, understand the community and could balance the needs of all stakeholders, which is not usual for Lithuanian judge in general.