Transcript Just Say No to the War on Drugs

SOCI3085
War on drugs
1. Course Administration
essays?
1
Schneiderman - Just Say No to the War on Drugs
• the Reagan administration, and Nancy Reagan’s
‘just say no to drugs’ campaign, and the
subsequent spawning of Wisotsky calls the
‘web of Black Market Pathologies’
• recent estimates that 1/32 Americans are
currently serving a sentence of incarceration,
probation or parole for a criminal conviction an estimated 60% of these are for drug or
drug-related offences; in some large American
cities, 1/4 Black males are currently serving
2
a criminal sentence
• estimated that between 25% and 50% of all
homicides, robberies and b&e are drug
related
• corruption of government officials; undermining
of the independence of foreign governments;
individual, social, health, economic costs
• the need for more and more money $$$, more
and more enforcement to fight the war on drugs,
but estimated seizures less than 10%
3
• civil control and forfeiture - proceeds of crime,
proposed provisions for seizure prior to
conviction for crime; zero-tolerance policies,
drug testing in the workplace, schools - what
price civil rights?
• on the other hand; alcohol and tobacco are legal;
yet alcohol is perhaps the most destructive
recreational drug of all - 50% of homicides &
traffic fatalities; billions $$$ in health costs, both
short-term and long-term; and then, there is
smoking
4
• Berger and Luckmann; the social construction
of reality, moral entrepreneurship, and the
‘war on drugs’ - is this the only way to define
the problem, and to enact measures to deal with
it? (or should be, as Daryl Gates proposed,
execute casual users? Nancy Reagan - ‘if you are
a casual drug user, you are an accomplice to
murder’)
• surveillance schemes - turning in your family,
neighbors
• the case of the Netherlands
5
Barsh & Marlor - Law as Power, Law as Process
• an evaluation and critique of the alternative
dispute resolution (ADR) approach, including
the peacemaking paradigm - do these approaches
work any better than the adversarial approach?
• law as power - coming out of the concept of
positive law : “law is a body of legislated rules
applied by coercive authority”
- undesirable activity is prohibited
- human behaviour as a whole is predictable
6
- the ‘power paradigm’
• versus tribal law or the ‘process paradigm’
where conflicts are resolved not through a power
struggle, but rather through cooperation,
compromise, and ‘give and take’, using a
flexible sets of procedures, with few ‘rules’
• we know that many of the aspects of the power
paradigm are not effective; punishment does
not increase compliance, even certainty and
celerity may not be effective in reducing
crime, especially repeat offending
• so: consider the alternative? ADR approaches
7
• ADR or the ‘negotiated justice’ approach
• ranging on a continuum from cooperation to
competition, incorporating a variety of
along the continuum (negotiation, mediation,
arbitration…..)
• difficulty though in classifying and comprehending
the nature and dynamics of conflict - especially
where the ongoing conflict may actually
benefit some of the parties - to resolve conflicts
in the ADR manner, both parties must be honest
8
and motivated
• the problem, frequently experienced, that
negotiated justice systems are too often
co-opted under the umbrella of state authority they are not independent systems
• increasing the power of professionals, and the
whole concept of ‘net widening’ - note here:
is Native justice really Native justice, or
conventional justice in disguise?
• ‘peacemaking’ - this approach is fundamentally
opposed to social control - emphasis on
9
redistribution, equality of power
• that wrongdoers can be rehabilitated effectively
and inexpensively without cruelty or
punishment, and that the community can be
restored, conflict resolved
• but what does the research say?
- difficult to measure outcomes, either
quantitatively or qualitatively with any
reliability/validity
- social divisions within Native communities
make it almost impossible to assess
contemporary effectiveness
- no evidence that it works better, or even as10well
• Hudson & Galloway: An Introduction to Restorative
Justice
• three fundamental elements:
1. crime as a ‘social’ conflict between
offenders, victims and community
2. aim of justice system to create,
promote peace through reparation and
reconciliation
3. active participation by victims,
offenders, communities
11
• note that a restorative justice system would
require the decentralization, deprofessionalization
of the justice system - and a commitment of time
and resources from the community
• emphasis on ‘community responsibility’, and a
broader view of the problem - a ‘peacemaking
perspective’
12
• Restorative Justice process:
1. Pre-mediation phase
(the role of the mediator; intake and eligibility;
preparation; voluntary nature; safety; direct
contact/not)
2. Mediation phase
(importance of ground rules; symbolic
reparation: shame and forgiveness; providing
a means for the offenders to return from shame)
3. Follow-up phase and outcomes
(material, psychological and social aspects for
13
all parties)
• the future of restorative justice?
- what does the theory of the development of
law say?
- incorporation into ‘state operated’ justice
system
- ‘net widening’
- the issue of fairness and justice: are
restorative justice programs fair to the
victim, the offender, the community - are
these partners really equal in the process?
- public support/tolerance for the process
14
• so: what is the solution - what does our
experience with Prohibition tell us?
15
16
17
18