Book Review: Whiteacre, K. (2008). Drug Court Justice: Experiences in a Juvenile Drug Court. New York: Peter Lang. 140 pp

• Published date: 01 December 2009
• Author: Salmon A. Shomade
• DOI: 10.1177/0734016809332178
• Date: 01 December 2009
• Subject Matter: Articles

Whiteacre, K. (2008). Drug Court Justice: Experiences in a Juvenile Drug Court.

New York: Peter Lang. 140 pp.

DOI: 10.1177/0734016809332178

Drug Court Justice is an important and necessary addition to the literature on drug courts. For

scholars of these courts, some of whom have come to view them as part of a social movement to

transform how we view punishment and justice, this is a mustread book simply because it focuses

on a particular subset of drug offenders—juveniles. In this book, Kevin Whiteacre presents his find-

ings from his study of a juvenile drug treatment court located in the Midwest. Using detailed

accounts of his interviews and observations of various stakeholders, Whiteacre analyzes a number

of important issues such as denial, surveillance, accountability, and definition of success as they

manifest in this particular court. Interspersed throughout the book is an extensive review of scholarly

works on these important issues.

Whiteacre’s study was an explorative case study conducted while serving a one-year stint as the

court evaluator. Whiteacre interviewed 25 juveniles, the judge, defender, prosecutor, three probation

officers, and six treatment counselors. During the period, he also observed several weekly compli-

ance court hearings, prehearing staff meetings, and a few treatment meetings. In his attempt to

include juveniles of various experiences, the author self-selected these participants. Because of the

information gathered during his earlier interviews and observations, he was able to target hard-to-

reach juveniles.

Inchapter1,Whiteacretracesthehistoryandgrowthofthedrugcourtmovement.Presenting the ratio-

nales behind the creation of drug courts, he briefly discusses the theory of ‘‘Therapeutic Jurispru-

dence’’ and its influence on the evolution of drug courts. Whiteacre also underscores that ‘‘most

persistent and widespread methodological problem in both adult and juvenile drug court research has

been the use of improper comparison groups’’ (p. 11). Noting later that drug court studies are getting

better, he maintains that the ‘‘book represents one such attempt to critically analyze and better under-

stand how the ingredients of a drug court—confrontation of denial, punishment for noncompliance,

and surveillance through drug testing—are experienced in practice by the participants and staff

involved’’ (p. 14). The chapter ends with a summary of the book’s remaining chapters.

The juvenile drug court is described in chapter 2. The author details eligibility for the program,

the process by which juvenile offenders were brought into the program, the number and demo-

graphics of the offenders, and information about drug testing and treatment meetings. We learn the

juvenile participants were mostly 12- to 17-year-old nonviolent offenders facing either marijuana or

alcohol-related charges or with other substance abuse histories. We also learn that marijuana was the

predominant drug choice for most offenders. In chapter 3, the author addresses the issue of denial

and its meaning to the juveniles and court staff. Offering extensive testimonials provided by the par-

ticipants, Whiteacre notes that many juveniles denied minor drug use despite positive tests. Mean-

while, the staff saw this denial as part of the juveniles’ youthfulness and the juveniles’ resistance to

the staff’s depiction of them as drug abusers as evidence of the denial itself.

In chapter 4, Whiteacre focuses on sanctions used by the court to ensure participants’ compliance

with program rules. Presenting both the staff and the juveniles’ assessment of the efficacy of pro-

gram sanctions, he notes that some juveniles felt that the drug court was tougher than regular proba-

tion. He observes, ‘‘The sanctioning system, set up in the [juvenile drug court] to be both therapeutic

and punitive, is interpreted differently by its staff, the participants, and other criminal justice pro-

grams’’ (p. 60). In chapter 5, Whiteacre argues that in recent times the modern therapeutic jurispru-

dence movement has been criticized for its reliance on ‘‘coercive’’ treatment. He maintains that

critics see coercive treatment as undermining the Western ideals of individual autonomy and

502 International Criminal Justice Review