The use of coercion in plea bargains is constitutional according to the Supreme Court. Since plea-bargains for drug courts involve a greater need of coercion than normal court process due to the limited options available, it is considered a leveraging power to help drug users take advantage of the necessary treatment provided. However, the excessive use of coercion has led to many drug offenders entering treatment that are considered understaffed and over capacity (Parsons & Wei, 2015). The excessive use of coercion has also forced a drug courts to choice in behalf of the defendant, since the alternative is facing a jail sentence. Despite the concerns addressed, the courts when challenged of this claim find under the drug court setting that
…show more content…
According to one New York City Judge, a judge’s role in drug court is “a significant departure from the former system of law” where the process of drug court transformed the roles of judges by involving one to directly place a defendant into treatment as well as supervise one closely during the process (Sciolino, 2005). Judge Sciolino argues that the role of a judge now becomes a conflict of interest due to the fact their involvement cannot be considered neutral during the pretrial and plea bargaining process. “The extent of a treatment court judge’s involvement is unprecedented. In drug court, the judges take an active role in the entire drug court processes, from organization, design and implementation. This type of involvement reduces the judge’s ability to be an impartial and objective,” Judge Sciolino said, describing issues in drug court and the changing role of judges (Sciolino, …show more content…
It’s a basic requirement in the judicial system for judges to prevent the probability of unfairness. In Tumey v. Ohio, (1927), a judge sat on the judge-grand jury listening to witnesses testify and presided over the hearing over those witness. This created an unconstitutional bias in the court and ruled that no man can sit as a judge in a case where he also has an interest in the outcome (Oram & Gleckker, 2006; Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 1927). Using this case to define a judge’s role, the court ruled that a judge can’t balance between the state and the accused for it denies the latter the due process of law (Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 1927). Therefore, when a judge is involved heavily in a case, the bias shows and concerns should be raised. Judges in drug courts are considered biased based on their personal role of pushing prosecutors and district attorneys into encourage a defendant to participate in drug treatment. The judge ultimately becomes a problem-solver by creating and maintaining a team for the defendant in partaking into drug treatment. Judges were now involved in oversee the drug treatment program from start to finish and often times vested their interest in the process necessary for the success of the program (Oram & Gleckker,
According to one New York City Judge, a judge’s role in drug court is “a significant departure from the former system of law” where the process of drug court transformed the roles of judges by involving one to directly place a defendant into treatment as well as supervise one closely during the process (Sciolino, 2005). Judge Sciolino argues that the role of a judge now becomes a conflict of interest due to the fact their involvement cannot be considered neutral during the pretrial and plea bargaining process. “The extent of a treatment court judge’s involvement is unprecedented. In drug court, the judges take an active role in the entire drug court processes, from organization, design and implementation. This type of involvement reduces the judge’s ability to be an impartial and objective,” Judge Sciolino said, describing issues in drug court and the changing role of judges (Sciolino, …show more content…
It’s a basic requirement in the judicial system for judges to prevent the probability of unfairness. In Tumey v. Ohio, (1927), a judge sat on the judge-grand jury listening to witnesses testify and presided over the hearing over those witness. This created an unconstitutional bias in the court and ruled that no man can sit as a judge in a case where he also has an interest in the outcome (Oram & Gleckker, 2006; Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 1927). Using this case to define a judge’s role, the court ruled that a judge can’t balance between the state and the accused for it denies the latter the due process of law (Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 1927). Therefore, when a judge is involved heavily in a case, the bias shows and concerns should be raised. Judges in drug courts are considered biased based on their personal role of pushing prosecutors and district attorneys into encourage a defendant to participate in drug treatment. The judge ultimately becomes a problem-solver by creating and maintaining a team for the defendant in partaking into drug treatment. Judges were now involved in oversee the drug treatment program from start to finish and often times vested their interest in the process necessary for the success of the program (Oram & Gleckker,