Ramya Sreeramoju
Professor Clovis
CLAR-111
16 October 2015
Critique of In-Prison Drug Treatment Study
Introduction
Drug offenders, as these people are called, often receive sentences that are much too long for the offense they actually committed. Labelled as hardcore criminals when they did not even do anything violent, they are often slapped with these prolonged sentences and then not given a chance to reform during their time in prison, both simply adding up to no possibility for improvement or betterment at all. If these prisoners are given a chance, such as in-prison treatment programs, there is a much higher likelihood of these prisoners leaving with much better attitudes and less criminal tendency. These programs, however, are not offered …show more content…
To begin with, as mentioned earlier, a large part of Wexler credibility comes from that he was a prisoner investigator and had a substantial amount of experience regarding such issues. In fact, according to Spectrum Health Systems (2015), he was an “internationally recognized expert in correctional substance abuse services and outcomes” (p. 1), attesting directly to the entire argument and topic itself. He was a “senior advisor to several federal agencies, including the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections and National Institute on Drug Abuse” and “co-led a workgroup at the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment that developed Treatment Improvement Protocol (TIP) #44 -- Substance Abuse Treatment for Adults in the Criminal Justice System” (Spectrum Health Systems, 2015, p. 1). His work ranged from Lindora to “several national research projects” (Spectrum Health Systems, 2015, p. 1) and even generated the start and implementation of these in-prison treatments programs themselves. Confirmation bias isn’t really involved, as this study wasn’t the only time he was trying it out. He has argued [successfully] this point countless times through different studies and projects, and has even broken through and gotten the programs started. As he is the literal reason these programs even exist, a study …show more content…
The study uses a good size of subjects, involving all the people who volunteered to participate after having asked the entire prison, which came out to hundreds of subjects representing just one prison, thereby making the sample size ample. The study was also random, as the researchers asked the entire population of prisoners to volunteer, rather than just one section of the prison. The study also made sure to be representative of all the different groups; according to the study, “the ages of all groups were quite similar” (Wexler, 1992, p. 160), as was the race, as shown by the “about 50 percent black, 25 percent white, 25 percent Hispanic” (Wexler, 1992, p. 160). In terms of statistical fallacies, there are basically none; sample size is sufficient and unbiased, and the study doesn’t really rely on statistics in the first place. Even after having to go through a quasi-experiment because there is no other choice for studies regarding these kinds of things, the researchers cover the sample and all other confounding variables so well that the study remains strong and
Professor Clovis
CLAR-111
16 October 2015
Critique of In-Prison Drug Treatment Study
Introduction
Drug offenders, as these people are called, often receive sentences that are much too long for the offense they actually committed. Labelled as hardcore criminals when they did not even do anything violent, they are often slapped with these prolonged sentences and then not given a chance to reform during their time in prison, both simply adding up to no possibility for improvement or betterment at all. If these prisoners are given a chance, such as in-prison treatment programs, there is a much higher likelihood of these prisoners leaving with much better attitudes and less criminal tendency. These programs, however, are not offered …show more content…
To begin with, as mentioned earlier, a large part of Wexler credibility comes from that he was a prisoner investigator and had a substantial amount of experience regarding such issues. In fact, according to Spectrum Health Systems (2015), he was an “internationally recognized expert in correctional substance abuse services and outcomes” (p. 1), attesting directly to the entire argument and topic itself. He was a “senior advisor to several federal agencies, including the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections and National Institute on Drug Abuse” and “co-led a workgroup at the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment that developed Treatment Improvement Protocol (TIP) #44 -- Substance Abuse Treatment for Adults in the Criminal Justice System” (Spectrum Health Systems, 2015, p. 1). His work ranged from Lindora to “several national research projects” (Spectrum Health Systems, 2015, p. 1) and even generated the start and implementation of these in-prison treatments programs themselves. Confirmation bias isn’t really involved, as this study wasn’t the only time he was trying it out. He has argued [successfully] this point countless times through different studies and projects, and has even broken through and gotten the programs started. As he is the literal reason these programs even exist, a study …show more content…
The study uses a good size of subjects, involving all the people who volunteered to participate after having asked the entire prison, which came out to hundreds of subjects representing just one prison, thereby making the sample size ample. The study was also random, as the researchers asked the entire population of prisoners to volunteer, rather than just one section of the prison. The study also made sure to be representative of all the different groups; according to the study, “the ages of all groups were quite similar” (Wexler, 1992, p. 160), as was the race, as shown by the “about 50 percent black, 25 percent white, 25 percent Hispanic” (Wexler, 1992, p. 160). In terms of statistical fallacies, there are basically none; sample size is sufficient and unbiased, and the study doesn’t really rely on statistics in the first place. Even after having to go through a quasi-experiment because there is no other choice for studies regarding these kinds of things, the researchers cover the sample and all other confounding variables so well that the study remains strong and