al branch of an administration that collaborates with social agencies burdened with reducing the astronomical fiscal and socioeconomic costs of incarceration on the community which is far much less than the cost of imprisonment.
Very many government agencies have done this analysis and are in the public domain, in 1997, for example, CSAT, which is the Center of Substance Abuse Treatment, published its final report evaluating cost benefit analysis including the economic impact of incarceration and treatment and it was approved that the treat was much cheaper by $ 5000 per client.
In the Drug Treatment Alternative to Prison (DTAP), which was a program in Brooklyn, New York, enables drug and alcohol addicted defendant to accept that they are guilty to their respective crimes so that they can be registered into system of treatment in community for a period of at least two years; in the DTAP evaluation of the program it has been found that the program has done much better in reducing recidivism and use of drug and this has increased the number of employment opportunities, hence has saved a lot of money. The statistics has it that the cost of putting a patient in DTAP is half of the cost the same participant if sent to serve a normal imprisonment term (Justice Policy Institute 4455 Connecticut Avenue NW Suite B-500 Washington, DC 20008). It is quite unreasonable for the court to sentence my client, Mr. Jones, to serve jailed sentence without giving him chance to serve treatment on drug court sentence which is cheaper and cost effective.
It is quite clear that the cost of drug courts is much less than the cost of jail imprisonment in any logic sense and in order to save the tax payers’ money – it is the most appropriate method among the factors to be considered in imposing a sentence. The court shall impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes set forth in paragraph 2 of this subsection. The court, in determining the