Courts, Policing and the Law

Political battles over malpractice reform have recurred for 35 years, starting at the state level. Many states have enacted caps on awards and other tort reforms amid liability insurance crises proclaimed in the mid-1970s, mid-1980s, and early 2000s. Since the mid-1990s, Republicans have unsuccessfully sought similar malpractice limits at the federal level. Sharp run-ups in claims rates preceded the first two crises; the last seemed more driven by increases in awards and other costs, along with insurance market developments. Defensive medicine arose separately as a national policy issue in the late 1960s. At the time, medical liability was expanding from the very low level of the 1950s because of shifts in both tort doctrines and social culture.

This brief examines homicides in the District of Columbia over the period 2001 — 2009, both citywide and by police district. The analysis found that homicides declined more than 70 percent between 1991 and 2009, and 20 percent between 2008 and 2009. District-level analyses found that in all Districts but District 4, homicide rates dropped from 2006 — 2009. District 4 saw a small increase in its homicide rate. Homicides were also found to be relatively rare in District 1, 2, and 3. The full brief provides more in-depth findings on the changes in homicide rates in other Districts.

Expanding drug courts to all 1.5 million drug-involved offenders would cost more than $13 billion annually, but would return more than $40 billion in benefits, John Roman told a House of Representatives subcommittee. The criminal justice system can maximize the use of drug courts without adding billions in new costs by calling on less expensive strategies, such as Hawaii's Project HOPE, to identify defendants who can be encouraged to desist from offending, allowing drug courts to focus on those who cannot.

The Urban Institute, the Center for Court Innovation, and RTI International conducted a five-year Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation on behalf of the National Institute of Justice. This presentation covers the impact of adult drug courts on: 1) drug use, 2) criminal activities and incarceration, 3) socioeconomic status, 4) mental health, and 5) families. Results include the impact of drug court participation in each area, and for whom drug courts work (i.e., whether they are particularly suited to some, as opposed to other, categories of offenders).

The Urban Institute, the Center for Court Innovation, and RTI International conducted NIJ’s Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation. This presentation describes the policies and practices of drug courts with the highest performance based on participants’ outcomes, using data collected for MADCE drug court participants. The focus is on key court policies and practices, namely: adherence to treatment best practices, leverage, predictability of sanctions, and multidisciplinary team decision making.