Depenalization, diversion and decriminalization: A realist review and programme theory of alternatives to criminalization for simple drug possession
| Author | Rebecca Cassidy,Shann Hulme,Alex Stevens,Caitlin Elizabeth Hughes |
| Published date | 01 January 2022 |
| Date | 01 January 2022 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/1477370819887514 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370819887514
European Journal of Criminology
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1477370819887514
journals.sagepub.com/home/euc
Depenalization, diversion
and decriminalization:
A realist review and
programme theory of
alternatives to
criminalization for
simple drug possession
Alex Stevens
University of Kent, UK
Caitlin Elizabeth Hughes
Flinders University, Australia
Shann Hulme
RAND Europe, UK
Rebecca Cassidy
University of Kent, UK
Abstract
Alternatives to criminalization for the simple possession of illicit drugs are increasingly of interest
to policy makers. But there is no existing theoretically based, empirically tested framework that
can inform development and evaluation. This article presents a realist programme theory of such
alternatives. It bases this on a realist review, which followed the Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence
Syntheses: Evolving Standards (RAMESES). It describes the systematic process of searching the
literature in English on nine relevant countries (Australia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany,
Jamaica, Netherland, Portugal, the UK, the USA) for information on alternative measures in three
Corresponding author:
Alex Stevens, School of Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research, University of Kent, Chatham, ME4
4AG, UK.
Email: a.w.stevens@kent.ac.uk
887514EUC0010.1177/1477370819887514European Journal of CriminologyStevens et al.
research-article2019
Article
2022, Vol. 19(1) 29–54
categories: depenalization; diversion; and decriminalization. It shows how these measures – in
theory and in practice – combine with pre-existing social conditions and institutional contexts
to trigger mechanisms across three causal pathways (normative; criminal justice; and health and
social services). It shows how some posited causal processes are more empirically supported than
others. Alternative measures can reduce harms imposed by criminal justice processes without
increasing drug use or related health and crime harms, but this depends on specific combinations
of contexts, mechanisms and outcomes.
Keywords
Drugs, depenalization, diversion, decriminalization, realist review, programme theory
Introduction
The international consensus on how to deal with illicit drug use is fractured (Bewley-
Taylor, 2012; McLean, 2018). The idea that simple drug possession (with no intent or
attempt to supply) should be dealt with through criminalization can no longer be taken
for granted. Publics and policy makers across many countries are looking for alternative
approaches. This search is likely to be further spurred by a recent call by the coordinating
body of the United Nations (UN) for all member states to ‘promote alternatives to con-
viction and punishment in appropriate cases, including the decriminalization of drug
possession for personal use’ (UN CEBC, 2019: 14). However, in spite of the growing
body of literature on alternatives to criminalization, there are no theoretically informed,
empirically tested frameworks for publics and policy makers to use in developing such
alternatives.
The causes of this gap are multiple. First, extant research into alternatives to crimi-
nalization has tended to focus on specific models of reform, such as the Portuguese
decriminalization of the use and possession of all illicit drugs (Hughes and Stevens,
2010) or US decriminalization of cannabis possession (Pacula et al., 2005). Although
producing insight into the pros and cons of these specific models (such as the public
health gains of the Portuguese approach), this leaves unanswered whether and how the
specificities of mechanisms or context shape the outcomes of reform. Second, there is
now a large body of work on the contexts of reforms. Here we note the excellent work of
Colson and Bergeron (2017) and colleagues, outlining the multiple factors that can shape
when and how drug law reform can occur (including the role of drug trends, legal sys-
tems, political machinations and advocacy coalitions). But this work is seldom connected
to analysis of the mechanisms or outcomes of reforms. A third and final challenge is that
outcome-based research has tended to focus on one main indicator: the prevalence of
drug use. There are a number of reports providing comparisons in drug use prevalence
between jurisdictions that have or have not ‘decriminalized’ drugs or ‘liberalized’ drug
policy (Cecho et al., 2017; Hughes et al., 2018; Kotlaja and Carson, 2018; Maloff, 1981;
Rogeberg and Stevens, 2016; Simons-Morton et al., 2010; Stevens, 2016, 2019; Vuolo,
2013). Although these studies concur that liberalization of drug use is not associated with
large increases in drug consumption, there has been less focus on other outcomes and
the ways in which specific mechanisms and contexts combine to produce positive or
30 European Journal of Criminology 19(1)
To continue reading
Request your trial