Procedural Fairness in Drug Courts: A Qualitative Study

• In Event: The Impact of Specialized Courts

Abstract

As drug policies shift from the punitive “War on Drugs” approach to a public health-oriented model, treatment courts have emerged to reduce the punitive approaches of the past by incentivizing treatment while preserving criminal sanctions if requirements are not met. While drug court programs may adhere to certification standards, participant experiences are shaped by local-level discretion and implementation. Therefore, understanding how these programs operate is essential. This study examines perceptions of procedural fairness in drug courts through observations of nine courts and qualitative interviews with 25 stakeholders, including judges, probation officers, peer supporters, coordinators, prosecutors, and treatment providers. Data will be analyzed using thematic analysis, guided by four principles of perceived legitimacy and procedural fairness: voice, neutrality, respectful treatment, and trustworthy authorities (Burke & Leben, 2007; MacKenzie, 2016). Findings from this study can inform drug court program design and interventions aimed at enhancing procedural fairness.

Authors

• Tasha Perdue, The Ohio State University

• Lydia Applin, The Ohio State University

• Additti Munshi, The Ohio State University

• Dexter Ridgway, The Ohio State University

• Sadé L. Lindsay, Cornell University

• Alex Fraga, The Ohio State University

• Krystel Tossone, The Ohio State University