Drug addiction can be a difficult burden to bear, and it can affect both an addict and their loved ones. Unfortunately, many addicts become caught up in the criminal justice system, and they may face drug charges for possession of controlled substances, possession with intent to distribute, or drug trafficking. In addition to or instead of facing criminal charges, some addicts may be forced to undergo treatment meant to help them overcome their addictions. However, some advocates have questioned the effectiveness of these forms of treatment and raised concerns about how “involuntary commitment” laws may violate people’s rights.

Civil Commitment for Drug Addicts

Multiple states have laws that allow a person to be forced to complete rehabilitation or other forms of addiction treatment. This is sometimes seen as a compassionate solution that will ensure that those who may be a threat to themselves or others can take steps to address issues related to addiction and get their lives back on track. Many family members support these programs, and they may believe that they are the only option for a person who has refused to accept help.

Unfortunately, studies have shown that these forms of treatment are often ineffective. While some may benefit from forced rehab, they are usually in the minority, and in most cases, these programs do not result in significant reductions in drug use or drug-related crimes. Some studies have even shown that involuntary treatment programs have led to increases in drug crimes and higher rates of overdoses or other negative outcomes for those who have been required forced to undergo treatment. Many advocates believe that voluntary treatment programs are much more effective, especially when a person is encouraged to work toward achieving life and career goals and receives assistance from family members.

Minors who are charged with crimes and involved in juvenile delinquency proceedings or criminal cases in adult courts may face multiple types of consequences. In addition to criminal penalties, such as being placed in juvenile detention, paying fines or restitution, performing community service, and serving a sentence of probation, a person may face a number of other consequences. A criminal record can limit a person’s future job prospects, their ability to pursue an education or find housing, and multiple other areas of their life. Unfortunately, the mistakes made by a young person could follow them for the rest of their life.

Criminal justice advocates believe that juvenile offenders deserve the chance to put criminal offenses behind them as they move forward into adulthood. Multiple scientific studies have shown that when people are in their teens and early twenties, their brains are still developing, and they may not fully be able to understand the consequences of their actions or have the ability to control impulses. Because of this, minors who are charged or convicted of crimes will be likely to outgrow this behavior and avoid criminal activity in the future. However, a criminal record can make it difficult to do so. To address this issue, advocates are calling for changes to laws to ensure that juvenile criminal records can be expunged or kept confidential.

How Connecticut Law Addresses Juvenile Records

The laws that address criminal records for juvenile offenders differ significantly from state to state. Some states provide for the automatic expungement of criminal records after a minor reaches adulthood, while others require juveniles to apply for expungement. Fortunately for those who live in Connecticut, the state’s laws provide minors with protection and help ensure that they can receive the fresh start they deserve once they have served their sentences.

When a person is accused of a crime, the evidence against them should be properly evaluated during an investigation by law enforcement officials. When this evidence is presented during a criminal trial, jurors should be informed about the potential for errors and the possibility that investigators came to the wrong conclusions. Unfortunately, forensic evidence is often seen as infallible, and prosecutors may claim that certain types of evidence provide incontrovertible proof of a person’s guilt. In reality, many of these forms of evidence are based on “junk science,” and the misuse or misapplication of forensic evidence can lead to wrongful convictions.

Problems With Forensic Science

There are some forms of evidence that can be scientifically evaluated to indicate whether a person did or did not commit a crime. For example, DNA evidence can often be used to identify a person, and prosecutors may argue that the presence of a person’s DNA at a crime scene demonstrates that they are guilty. However, there are multiple other types of forensic evidence that have been called into question, including:

• Bite marks - Because people often have unique dental characteristics, so-called experts often claim that they can identify a person based on the bite patterns left on a crime victim. However, multiple studies have found that the identification of a person through bite marks is highly unreliable. Even those who claim to be experts have been found to misidentify bite marks 50 percent of the time or more. Sadly, even though this form of evidence is highly unreliable, it continues to be used in many criminal cases.

  ...

Those who are involved in criminal cases will often struggle to protect their rights, including when they are placed under supervised release. There are many cases where those who are convicted of crimes may receive an early release through parole, or they may be sentenced to special parole in addition to serving a prison sentence. In other cases, a person may be sentenced to probation or other forms of conditional release. Those who are on parole or probation are subject to multiple types of restrictions, and they can face additional prison sentences or penalties for a probation or parole violation. This is a serious concern for many people, and a recent study has found that criminal violations of parole or probation account for around two thirds of all prison time sentenced by state and federal courts.

Sentences for Criminal Violations of Probation or Parole May Result in Double Punishment

Many criminal justice advocates focus on the penalties that people often face for “technical violations” of probation or parole. These may include issues such as failure to meet curfew requirements or to show up on time for meetings with a parole officer. While this is a significant issue that often results in the revocation of probation or parole, a study by a law professor at Penn State has found that criminal violations are another issue that may affect the rights of people in these cases.

Criminal violations include any new criminal charges that a person faces while they are on parole or probation. Most of the time, the conditions of supervised release that are put in place by a court will require a person to obey all laws. If a person is accused of violating any laws, they may not only have their probation or parole revoked, but they will often face additional prison sentences for committing a criminal violation, as well as sentences for new criminal charges. This can result in “double punishment,” and sentences may greatly exceed what would have been appropriate based on the crimes a person is accused of committing.

People in the 21st century usually expect that images of their faces will be captured on a regular basis, such as by security cameras at stores they visit. However, they may not be aware that these images could potentially be used against them in cases where police officers investigate alleged crimes, identify possible suspects, and decide to perform arrests and pursue criminal charges. As the use of facial recognition technology by law enforcement continues to increase, many criminal defense lawyers, privacy advocates, and others who are concerned about criminal justice have raised concerns about how defendants may be affected by these practices.

Concerns About the Accuracy of Facial Recognition

According to a study performed by the Georgetown Center on Privacy and Technology in 2016, around half of all adults in the United States are included in facial recognition databases, and police in most states have access to this information. These databases include driver’s license photos and mug shots of people who have been arrested, and some facial recognition services have also compiled information from publicly available photos people have shared online, such as on Facebook or Instagram. 

Unfortunately, few police departments or state governments have adopted rules about when and how facial recognition technology should be used. A program may scan through thousands of photos to identify suspects, providing confidence scores for potential matches. However, there are rarely rules about what inputs may be used when performing searches or what confidence scores are acceptable when identifying suspects. This introduces a great deal of bias into the system, making it more likely that the wrong suspects will be identified.