EditorialOn coercion
Section snippets
Acknowledgements
Our work on the QCT Europe project is funded by the European Commission's Fifth Framework Research and Development programme (contract number QLG4-CT-2002-01446). The views expressed in this article cannot be taken to reflect the views of the European Commission, nor of our partners in this project (although we acknowledge their contribution to research and discussions that have informed our thinking).
References (17)
What comes first good policy or best practice? The relationship between guidelines for the diversion of drug related offenders from the criminal justice system and the research literature
International Journal of Drug Policy
(2005)- et al.
Client engagement with drug treatment
Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment
(1999) - et al.
The effectiveness of drug abuse treatment: A meta-analysis of comparison group studies
Drug and Alcohol Dependence
(2002) - et al.
Tough love: Nurturing and coercing responsibility and recovery in California drug courts
Social Problems
(2003) Compulsory treatment for drug-dependent persons: Justifications for a public health approach to drug dependency
The Milbank Quarterly
(1991)- et al.
The relationship of legal coercion to readiness to change among adults with alcohol and other drug problems
Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment
(2004) The role of legal coercion in the treatment of offenders with alcohol and heroin problems
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology
(1997)- et al.
Whose harm? Harm and the shift from health to coercion in UK drug policy
Social Policy & Society
(2004)
Cited by (19)
Drug policy, harm and human rights: A rationalist approach
2011, International Journal of Drug PolicyCitation Excerpt :It also implies that dependent drug users should receive no automatic exemption from punishment for any other crimes that they commit, as they retain responsibility for their actions. If they do commit such crimes, then offering them a treatment alternative to an otherwise justified criminal sanction may offer a way to limit the infliction of penal pain whilst also more effectively protecting potential victims from future offences (Schaub et al., 2010; Stevens, McSweeney, van Ooyen, & Uchtenhagen, 2005). The PGC leads to a rational acceptance that drug policy should aim to limit objectively verified harms to rights.
Science, action and the International Journal of Drug Policy
2006, International Journal of Drug PolicyAlcohol Use in Forensic Mental Health and Criminal Justice Settings
2023, Alcohol Use: Assessment, Withdrawal Management, Treatment and Therapy: Ethical PracticeFrom unimpeachable autonomy to self-imposed heteronomy: a liberal and Foucauldian perspective on advance euthanasia directives
2021, Humanities and Social Sciences CommunicationsRecovery, desistance, and the role of procedural justice in working alliances with mentally ill offenders: a critical review
2019, Addiction Research and TheoryPsychosocial functioning of drug treatment court clients: A study of the prosecutor's files in Ghent, Belgium
2014, Therapeutic Communities