Re-imagining nonpunitive approaches and rehabilitation in the courtroom: The case of drug courts in Chile

The combination of punishment and treatment in drug courts to rehabilitate defendants reflects the expansion of coercive penal care in court settings. In the U.S, drug courts remain deeply controversial: whereas some scholars and policymakers advocate for their expansion based on recidivism and cost-benefit evaluations, others raise concerns regarding the use of legal coercion and punitive measures in therapeutic settings. In 2004, Chile became the first Latin American country to implement drug courts. Unlike the U.S. drug court model, drug courts in Chile are not allowed to impose jail sanctions on defendants, offering a more restricted setting to examine how treatment and penal supervision are merged. Using semi-structured interviews (N = 34), I explore how courtroom actors and case managers understand the core elements of drug courts and their potential punitive nature. The findings show that the implementation of drug courts by team members—embracing recovery beyond zero-abstinence goals and focusing on the defendant's voluntariness to remain in the program— reflects a more balanced form of coercive penal care. Importantly, team members recognize the potential net-widening effects associated with this drug court model. I conclude by discussing the need to reformulate the role of defendants’ agency and punitive measures in problem-solving courts.