A diagnosis of substance use disorder (SUD) does not excuse criminal behavior, eliminate responsibility for complying with court orders, or diminish the justice system’s obligation to protect victims and the public. Individuals who appear in court remain responsible for their behavior. Courts must enforce lawful orders. Prosecutors must consider public safety. Law enforcement must protect communities. Community supervision professionals must monitor compliance and respond when conditions are violated.

Put another way, the justice system must establish guardrails to promote compliance with its orders.

The more difficult question is not whether guardrails are necessary. It is what form those guardrails should take to achieve the result the justice system wants.

In establishing those guardrails, the goals should be lasting behavior change and improved public safety. Accountability cannot be measured simply by the severity of the consequence imposed. It should also be measured by whether the response reduces the likelihood that the behavior will occur again.

Accountability Should Have a Purpose

Consequences are an important part of how the justice system holds individuals accountable. They reinforce expectations, respond to violations, protect the public, and communicate that court orders matter. 

But a consequence and an effective response are not always the same thing.

When an individual with SUD violates a condition of supervision, misses treatment, tests positive for alcohol or drugs, or otherwise fails to meet an obligation, the court must decide how to respond. An immediate question may be, “What consequence should follow?” But the better question is, “What response is most likely to reduce the likelihood that the behavior will recur?”

Sometimes the answer will include a sanction. In other circumstances, it may require increased supervision, a change in structure, or another justice-system response. At other times, the behavior may indicate a need for clinical reassessment, a different level of care, additional recovery support, or some combination of these responses.

Accountability is strongest when the response is connected to the reason for the behavior and the outcome the justice system is trying to achieve.

Not Every Violation Means the Same Thing

This distinction becomes especially important when substance use is involved.

As discussed in the previous principles, SUD can affect judgment, decision-making, and the ability to control substance use.^[1] The road to recovery may also include periods of renewed use.^[2] That does not mean every violation should be attributed to the disorder or that individuals should be insulated from consequences.

It does mean that courts should distinguish among different kinds of behavior.

A person who deliberately refuses to appear in court may present a different issue from a person who misses an appointment because of hospitalization. Someone who refuses repeated opportunities to participate in treatment may require a different response from someone who is participating but experiences renewed substance use. A positive drug test provides important information, but it does not by itself explain why the use occurred or identify the response most likely to prevent it from happening again.

The behavior matters. So does what the behavior tells us.

That distinction allows accountability to become more precise rather than less demanding.

Sanctions Are One Tool, Not the Goal

Sanctions have a legitimate place in the justice system. But sanctions are tools. They are not the objective.

The objective is compliance, behavior change, recovery when SUD is present, and protection of the public.

That means a sanction should not be imposed simply because it is available or because the same response has traditionally been used for a particular violation. The response should be proportionate to the behavior and designed to accomplish an identifiable purpose.

The same principle applies to incentives. Positive reinforcement is an important component of effective accountability, with the greatest likelihood of successful supervision occurring when incentives substantially outweigh sanctions.^[3]  One study found the greatest likelihood of successful supervision when individuals received at least four rewards for every sanction..^[4]

Accountability is not limited to responding when someone does something wrong. Recognizing progress and reinforcing desired behavior can also strengthen compliance. Thus, effective accountability uses consequences and incentives strategically to encourage behavior that supports recovery and public safety.

Procedural Fairness Matters

How accountability is imposed also matters.

People are more likely to view legal decisions as legitimate when they believe they have been treated fairly, had an opportunity to be heard, understood what was expected of them, and were treated with dignity and respect.^[5]

That does not mean they must agree with the decision.^[6]

A participant may strongly disagree with a sanction and still understand why it was imposed.^[7] A person on probation may dislike a supervision requirement but recognize that the rule was clearly communicated and consistently applied.^[8]A treatment court participant may be disappointed by a response to noncompliance while still believing the court listened before acting.^[9]

This matters because accountability depends in part on legitimacy. If expectations appear arbitrary, inconsistent, or impossible to satisfy, the response may produce resentment without producing meaningful behavior change.

Clear expectations, predictable responses, an opportunity to be heard, and respectful treatment do not weaken authority; they make it more effective.

Accountability and Treatment Have Different Roles

Accountability also requires maintaining the distinction between justice decisions and clinical decisions.

The justice system determines legal obligations and responds to behavior that violates those obligations. Treatment professionals assess clinical needs and determine appropriate care. Those responsibilities can and should work together, but they are not interchangeable.

A court may properly require an individual to participate in treatment when legally authorized to do so. It may monitor attendance, require compliance with lawful conditions, and respond when those conditions are violated. But determining the appropriate medication, level of care, therapy, or other clinical intervention should be guided by qualified treatment professionals.

Maintaining those boundaries does not reduce accountability. It helps ensure that both systems do what they are trained and authorized to do.

Recovery Can Promote Public Safety

There is sometimes an assumption that justice systems must choose between supporting recovery and protecting the public.^[10]

That is a false choice.

When effective treatment reduces substance use and the behavior associated with it, public safety can improve.^[11] When supervision encourages compliance and stability, communities benefit. When individuals remain engaged in recovery, maintain employment, support their families, and avoid future criminal conduct, the interests of the individual and the public begin to align.

None of this means that every individual can safely remain in the community or that treatment should replace every sanction. Risk matters. Victims matter. The seriousness of the conduct matters. Clear guardrails should guide decisions about when detention, incarceration, or other significant restrictions are necessary.

But public safety should be measured by more than what happens today. A response that controls behavior temporarily but does nothing to reduce the likelihood of future offending may provide immediate protection without producing lasting safety.

The strongest justice response seeks both.

What Accountability Means for Justice Professionals

Accountability should therefore be purposeful, proportionate, and connected to the behavior the system is trying to change.

That means asking more than whether a rule was violated. What happened? Why did it happen? Does the behavior present an immediate risk? Is the response likely to reduce the chance that it will happen again? Is a justice response needed, a clinical response needed, or both?

Asking these questions does not excuse the behavior. It makes accountability more deliberate.

A diagnosis does not eliminate responsibility. Recovery does not eliminate consequences. Treatment does not replace public safety.

But neither should accountability be reduced to punishment alone.

The most effective justice systems use accountability to establish clear expectations, reinforce progress, respond appropriately to violations, promote treatment engagement, and encourage lasting behavior change.

That is how recovery and public safety can coexist.  But determining which responses are most likely to achieve those goals requires more than experience, tradition, or intuition. Courts, prosecutors, law enforcement, supervision agencies, and treatment courts should look to research and proven practices to guide what they do. That is the focus of the next principle in JSI’s framework: Evidence: Responses Should Be Guided by What Works.

---

---

^[1] Brian MacKenzie, Treatable: Recovery Is Possible, Justice Speakers Inst. (2026).

^[2] Substance Abuse & Mental Health Servs. Admin., Substance Abuse Treatment: Group Therapy ch. 5 (2005), NCBI Bookshelf.

^[3] Am. Prob. & Parole Ass’n, National Standards for Community Supervision 56 (2026).

^[4] Eric J. Wodahl, Brett Garland, Scott E. Culhane & William P. McCarty, Utilizing Behavioral Interventions to Improve Supervision Outcomes in Community-Based Corrections, 38 Crim. Just. & Behav. 386, 400 (2011).

^[5] Kevin Burke & Steve Leben, Procedural Fairness: A Key Ingredient in Public Satisfaction, 44 Ct. Rev. 4 (2007–2008).

^[6] Id.

^[7] Brian MacKenzie, The Judge Is the Key Component: The Importance of Procedural Fairness in Drug-Treatment Courts, 52 Ct. Rev. 8, 9–10 (2016).

^[8] Id.

^[9] Id.

^[10] Courtney Bryan, We Don’t Have to Choose Between Safety and Justice, Ctr. for Just. Innovation (Oct. 29, 2024). 

^[11] Id.