Still other initiatives are research initiatives aimed at improving criminal justice outcomes. One such research initiative is the Priority Criminal Justice Needs Initiative, a partnership between the National Institute of Justice, the RAND Corporation, the Police Executive Research Forum, RTI International, and the University of Denver (RAND Corporation, 2017). The initiative explores the use of technology in criminal justice, such as conducting a trial using remote technology, to improve the functioning of the criminal justice system. After the indictment, the jury deliberates on the process for deciding whether an accused is guilty or not guilty. During this trial, no one involved in the trial may contact the jury without the judge and lawyers. In federal criminal trials, jurors must make a unanimous decision to convict the accused. The inquisitorial system is associated with civil law legal systems and has existed for many centuries. It is characterized by thorough preliminary investigations and interrogations, with the aim of avoiding bringing an innocent person to justice. The inquisitorial trial can be described as an official investigation to uncover the truth, while the adversarial system uses a competitive process between the prosecution and defense to establish the facts.
The inquisitorial process gives more power to the supervising judge, whereas in the adversarial system, the judge serves more as an arbiter between prosecution and defence claims (Dammer & Albanese, 2014; Reichel, 2017). In many cases, the law allows defendants to be released from prison before trial if they meet bail conditions. Before the judge decides whether to grant bail, a hearing must be held on factors such as the length of the defendant`s stay in the area, the presence of his family nearby, the criminal record, and threats against victims or witnesses in the case. The judge also considers the accused`s potential danger to the community and the risk of escape. Correctional facilities also implement reintegration initiatives so that offenders who receive medication in prisons can continue to receive these services after their incarceration in the community. Drug treatment and in-custody reintegration programs have been shown to be very effective in reducing criminal behaviour and drug use during long follow-up periods. U.S. courts have not upheld the constitutional right to drug treatment in correctional facilities, except for services that address serious medical needs. However, a number of professional associations (ACA, NCCHC) have developed a set of professional standards to guide the development and implementation of drug treatment services in prisons and prisons. The exchange of information between criminal justice and treatment experts poses a number of challenges in the coordination of effective offender treatment programmes. HIPAA provides for extensive disclosure between treatment providers and courts, prisons, prisons, and law enforcement, though other state and federal privacy regulations also apply.
Negative attitudes towards witnesses and intoxicated victims are not limited to the general public. Schuller and Stewart (2000) examined police attitudes and found that as the victim became more intoxicated, perceived credibility and guilt for the perpetrator decreased. Similarly, Stewart and Maddren (1997) found that police officers were more likely to blame drunk victims in an intimate partner violence scenario than sober victims. Kassin, Tubb, Hosch and Memon (2001) interviewed forensic psychologists and found that 90% agreed that alcohol impairs an eyewitness` later ability to remember. A similar study of judges found that the majority agreed that alcohol poisoning reduces the reliability of bystanders (Houston, Hope, Memon, & Read, 2010). The criminal justice system has changed significantly over the past two decades due to widespread problems of drug abuse and drug-related crime. Courts, prisons, jails and community correctional facilities have grown dramatically during this period, facing enormous challenges in reducing the revolving door for drug-related offenders who pass through the justice system. In response to this trend, a number of substance abuse treatment programs have been implemented in correctional facilities, including inpatient and “outpatient” programs that apply cognitive-behavioural and motivational enhancement approaches and emphasize the restructuring of “criminal thinking.” Specialized correctional treatment programs have also begun to address the needs of offenders with concurrent mental disorders and substance use disorders who pose an additional risk of recidivism upon release from prison. In other countries, an increasing number of punitive drug treatment programs have emerged, and these are more characterized by “harm reduction” approaches such as methadone maintenance. Civic engagement is available in most countries and in some European countries to provide emergency assessment, treatment and follow-up of perpetrators of substances at risk of harming themselves or others. These procedures allow involuntary placement in inpatient and outpatient treatment for certain periods. Court-ordered diversion and treatment programs provide another legal remedy to treat drug-abusing offenders as an alternative to incarceration.