As we see with the case of Howard, the judge considered him eligible for the diversion program in 2014. Prosecutors argued against Howard’s eligibility for diversion, informing the judge that Howard previously requested for drug diversion in 2011 and was rejected. However, Justice McLaughlin ruled against the prosecutor recommendations, arguing that prior prison terms hasn’t helped and believed that diversion was the best method to treat and hopefully rehabilitate Howard (Pang, 2015). After the tragic shooting of Officer Holder from Howard, who had a warrant out for his arrest after failing to show up his monthly residential drug testing, there have been calls of improving the use of assessment tools since the implementation of the 2009 reforms. …show more content…
Offenders who violate the terms are met with a sanction based on the logic of using swift, certain, consistent, and proportionate consequences for misbehavior for targeted violations of probation. Each process implemented evaluates the reporting of monitoring probationers’ probation terms, randomized drug testing, sanction compliance, and incarceration days (Hawken & Kleiman, 2009). Unlike drug-court where judges play a pivotal role in assessing and supervising offenders treatment process, under HOPE, probation department are in charge in supervising treatment and judges only are involved when noncompliance is reported. Its approach is to focus directly on outcome of reducing drug use and missed appointments rather than on the process of drug treatment. The threat of sanction under HOPE has provided several major advantages compare to drug treatment model by identifying which clients are mandate-treatment to those of voluntary-treatment as means of achieving a greater “bang-for-the-buck” than “cherry picking” to ensure results. Under Hawken evaluation, 493 felony offenders’ outcomes were evaluated and found that 55 percent were less likely to be arrested for a new …show more content…
In 2013, all 120 counties of Kentucky adopted the use of PSA-Court system by relying on data of 56,866 defendant records to predictive nine risk factors in evaluating a risk of each defendant (LJAF, 2013). Based on the analysis of the system used within one year, 70 percent of defendants were identified to pose little to no threat to public safety with led to a 17 percent drop in reducing jail population (LJAF, 2013). The system was proven to be highly accurate in identifying defendants flagged for posing to be an increased risk for violence. This provided the courts the necessary information in detaining more high risk and potentially violent defendants, which in turn saw a 15 percent reduction in crime after release. According to Kentucky judges interviewed, they concluded the tool to be a reliable instrument to be taken into account when setting an appropriate bond and in turn reducing crime as well (LJAF,