Removal of criminal sanctions against public drunkenness offenders pro and con
| dc.contributor.advisor | Bramlett, Billy | |
| dc.contributor.author | Zabawa, Mark Francis,1948- | |
| dc.contributor.committeeMember | Cocros, John | |
| dc.contributor.committeeMember | Pilcher, Wayland | |
| dc.contributor.committeeMember | Hayes, Bascom Barry | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2024-07-19T19:39:32Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2024-07-19T19:39:32Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 1973-08 | |
| dc.description.abstract | Purpose: The objectives of this study were: (1) to present both the pro and con arguments on the issue of maintaining criminal sanctions against public drunkenness offenders so that this information can be used as a tool for decision making; (2) to elucidate the problem of alcoholism and its relationship to crime and public drunkenness. Methods: The methods used in this study were: (1) The collection of data concerning alcoholism, alcoholism legislation, and treatment of alcoholism, was carried out by consulting books, articles, and journals relating to the subject’s areas mentioned above which are located in the Sam Houston University Library; (2) further information concerning this study’s topic was obtained from the U.S. Government Printing Office in Washington, D.C., and the National Institute of Mental Health, Rockville, Maryland. Clarifying Notes The use of the term status quo herein contained refers to the present general procedure of the criminal justice system to handle public drunkenness offenders within the scope of the criminal law. Also, the use of the phrase present system refers to the general procedure of the present criminal justice system to criminally prosecute public drunkenness offender. The use of the phrase new system refers to the total abandonment and/or change from the present criminalistic procedure of handling public drunkenness offenders. The phrase new system refers to some new type of treatment for the present public drunkenness offender which does not result in his being criminally prosecuted for his actions. The present system and the new system are assumed to be in opposition to each other with respect to the exact function of the criminal law. The present system and the new system are assumed to be in opposition to each other with respect to the exact function of the criminal law. The specific opposition of these two systems to each other revolves around the utility of implementing the criminal law against public drunkenness offenders. The present system and the new system are also at issue with regard to the type of treatment given publicly drunk individuals under each system. The new system assumes that it can offer more qualitative treatment to publicly drunk individuals and the present system questions this contention. Findings: 1. The study indicates that there are two major arguments in favor of maintaining the status quo. 2. The study reveals that there are four major arguments in favor of abandoning the status quo. 3. The study suggests that these arguments counterbalance on another and therefore complete total change from the present system to a new system is questionable. 4. The study indicates that a possible solution to this dilemma is to strike a balance between the two dichotomous systems and thereby benefit both by failing to invoke the arrest process. This failure to invoke the arrest process consequently obviates the necessity of the courts to extend the concept of criminal responsibility, in addition to saving the present system grave financial and manpower losses through avoiding the situation (the arrest of public drunkenness offenders) which brings about these losses and the overburdening of our police departments, courts, and detention facilities. 5. The study indicates that the foregoing finding is contingent upon a minimal voluntary treatment center being set up so that these people being presently arrested can find shelter and treatment in these facilities. 6. The study found that the advantage of starting a small-scale voluntary treatment program to begin with, as opposed to a large-scale detoxification center, is advantageous for two reasons. These reasons being: (1) this type of small-scale program can analyze beforehand how well a large detoxification center would work, given the number of voluntary self-referrals to the small treatment facilities being advocated to begin with; (2) the success or failure of these programs, will temper community support or non-support of a large-scale treatment center. | |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11875/4496 | |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | |
| dc.publisher | Sam Houston State University | |
| dc.subject | Drunkenness (crime) | |
| dc.subject | Law and legislation | |
| dc.subject | Alcoholics | |
| dc.subject | United States | |
| dc.title | Removal of criminal sanctions against public drunkenness offenders pro and con | |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.type.material | Text | |
| thesis.degree.department | Criminal Justice | |
| thesis.degree.grantor | Sam Houston State University | |
| thesis.degree.level | Masters | |
| thesis.degree.name | Master of Art |