Evidence-Based Models While there is a debate regarding the criminalization that is being done to people just because they consume drugs, as of now the whole global community is against the offenders and addicts and wants them reformed or locked away. The reason is that there is a demonstrated relationship between drug abuse and crime, and the use of drugs and the peddling of the drugs have been shown to be the root cause of many violent crimes and domestic violence. Thus the importance given to rehabilitating drug users with intervention programs is not a misconceived notion, and nor is the involvement of the criminal justice system in the costly programs unwarranted. That being so it can be pointed out that for the youth, the intervention is crucial before they set out to become hardened criminals. (Peterson, 2009)

Thus for juvenile offenders it is important that the community based intervention programs are cared for and pressed into action. Here it is to be noted that the community support has a major role in making these programs a success. Regional programs that are aimed at reducing juvenile delinquency is a success, and thus community-based grants have a larger percentage of success. For example the juveniles have now the chance of doing community service in lieu of regular sentences and also volunteering for the youth court programs. Such programs are shown to be a great success. (Peterson, 2009)

Therefore a model that is slow to punish but supports long-term intervention and support is what is needed. It is shown that in the case of most offenders the punishments in such informal 'trials' are community service. The person pressed to do community service can be weaned away from abuse and this makes the community-based models as practiced in the youth court as reality evidence based intervention. The question is which model and type is best. In examining the models that stand out is primarily the therapeutic model, which has a rigid and top down enforcement model and another is the community-based model that is persuasive with the involvement of the community and society to a greater extent and is unstructured.

Arguments:

Primarily looking at the history of the evolution of the jurisprudence related to interventions, it has to be accepted that there is a biological aspect of crime, and today it is possible that once the biological causes of crime can be fixed the possibility of adopting some measures to curb the tendencies can also be taken. This means that there can be a clinical intervention with the persons possessing in general the biological inclination to become delinquents. (Reynolds; Mann, 2006)

This is generally true. The research with the adopted children shows that there is a biological connection with genetics, and birth, and thus there is biochemical and pharmacological factors. Thus it is not out of place to mention that the analysis of juveniles and others related to family based and social-based crimes show that to some extent the biological and social background introduces elements of criminal behavior that can be predicted. (Reynolds; Mann, 2006)

Because the family factors are shown to be an independent function for the behavior and future of the child, this research would help the community and scientists in resolving family-based delinquency issues. That being accepted it can be argued that to the addiction and subsequent problems of de-addiction too the biological inclinations have to be included. Further it can be argued further that human nature is dynamic and ever changing and has the potential to learn and retain. This begins from infancy and the learning potential is based on age. Thus where there is no learning possibility to learn empathy, waiting, love, attachment or delayed gratification the infant rebounds to the primitive evolutionary scripts of adaptation. The absence of learning in the infancy thus could be the reason why the individual reverts back to the features of functioning that result in criminality. (Brannigan, 1997)

There could be more than one cause, biological, social, and even causes that arise from other illnesses that could trigger violent behavior in people. Ethnicity and sex of the individual also seem to have an effect. Though the learning aspect is one of the possibilities, it is not the basic or only possibility. There is a need to combine more than one approach in the analysis -- just as the subject of the analysis -- the human is multidimensional. Therefore there cannot be any effective intervention that is based on only one set of hypothesis.

So it has to be agreed that: primarily there ought to be a medical involvement based on the identification...

The argument is that currently the models that are practiced tend to lean heavily either on the medical or the social support angle.
Programs:

In the context of research, the criminal justice system is the figure head for data analysis on the treatment and its effectiveness because the persons who take the programs from a criminal institution seem to imbibe the effect better than those who get admitted from civil life. The criminal justice system mechanisms seem to have its own effects in the success of the programs and the outcomes show that there are sixty percent results with the treatments from criminal establishment patients as compared to civil patients voluntarily treated for abuse. (Lowinson; Ruiz; Millman, 2005) Therefore seen with this background, the examinations of the models and their origins show that the seeds for the programs were sown by the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

The Models

The models that were created by the National Institute on Drug Abuse which published the modalities for treatment of the offenders was based on principles that were derived from the therapeutic models and communities and the function is based on the premise that the substance abuse is a kind of mental disorder -- and hence the peers of the community are used along with appropriate medical intervention to create a holistic program of treatment. It was widely agreed in the model that addiction is a brain disease. The second principle is that there is a requirement of medical intervention and sustained treatment and management and monitoring over large chunks of time. (Leukefeld; Gullotta; Gregrich, 2011)

The treatment must be prolonged in duration to accommodate lasting changes, and comprehensive assessment of the case and tailoring medication and other support to suit the individual patients have to be made in such a way that there exists a reward and punishment system during recovery. The community has to then provide support to the rehabilitated person and for those with a complicated mental problem there has to be a complete integrated long-term approach and medication and treatment are the most effective methods that is sought to bring about the recovery. No doubt the model is spectacular in the sense that after its implementation there has been remarkable changes in the addicts whose track records were examined later by researchers. (Leukefeld; Gullotta; Gregrich, 2011)

Thus the therapeutic community programs showed that substance abuse among offenders who have completed the course are less likely to use the drugs after release from prison. Thus the offender's participation in a therapeutic program was a sure signal that the recidivism could be avoided in most cases. It was shown that patients could stay away from drugs for very long periods of over 42 months after release from such a therapy. Thus medical treatment programs for offenders show that it can be the best evidence-based practice for the drug addicts in the criminal administration system. (Leukefeld; Gullotta; Gregrich, 2011)

This is also based on the evidence that is collected by the CBT or cognitive behavioral therapy which can also bolster the support and the program model that uses the medical therapy by changing and influencing the learning process and influencing the behavior of the patient. Thus combined, this model has shown considerable success in the treatment of offenders. This is to be emphasized that both these methods are often fit into a single model. (Leukefeld; Gullotta; Gregrich, 2011) Thus the models in comparison are fragmented between the concept of clinical trials and social force.

Recidivism

The argument that a criminal offender can be de-addicted by the model of clinical or medical model of criminology which suggests that criminal behavior is a sickness is faulty because the issue of recidivism is not addressed by such a method. On the other hand the social and community models based on the inmate-directed therapy groups, and those that are non-directive show a better possibility of controlling the recidivism. It is to be noted that about two-thirds of all criminal offenders are recidivists and they reenter the original state either during probation, parole, or some other form of conditional release. The only probable way of controlling this is by placing the persons in some community program.…