Criminal Justice Policy Review

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Whiteacre, K. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Criminal Justice Policy Review, Vol. 18, No. 3, 260-273 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/0887403407300088

Strange Bedfellows

The Tensions of Coerced Treatment

Kevin W. Whiteacre

Salvation Army Correctional Services Program Chicago, IL

The use of sanctions in drug treatment courts (DTCs) to enforce participant compliance with treatment represents the convergence of two different, sometimes opposing, correctional philosophies, punishment and rehabilitation. Though the literature on DTCs tends to treat this merging of ideologies unproblematically, it could present a possible source of conflict within DTCs and other coercive treatment programs. Exploratory interviews with staff and participants in a juvenile drug court (JDC) (n=37) uncovered two types of tension resulting from the sanctioning system. First, staff members often disagreed with each other over the appropriateness of rewards versus punishments and punishment severity to motivate compliance. Second, staff members experienced personal ambivalence over the efficacy of sanctions as a therapeutic tool, particularly when faced with some juveniles' continued noncompliance despite the sanctions. Staff neutralized this tension by attributing noncompliance to the juveniles' lack of motivation, concluding coerced treatment only works for those who are "ready" for treatment. This would appear to pose a paradox for coerced treatment, which is meant to induce compliance specifically among those who are not motivated. Future research should investigate the implications this ideological contradiction among staff has for the therapeutic outcomes of coerced treatment settings.

Key Words: drug treatment court • sanctions • treatment • juvenile • coercion • therapeutic jurisprudence


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?