Abstract

     There are few studies that have been conducted in the past that have followed drug cases from the investigation of indictment to sentencing. In this study, we read and coded the court's judgments to find out the current process of the Schedule I drug offenders after indictments and trial, and to examine the difference between the indictments and the court's judgments and the related factors. In this study, we analyzed 515 indictments and coded the objectively identifiable and theoretically rational information from the paper of judgments as variables. We explored the correlation between the variables from indictments and the judgments by using neural networks and logistic regression. The results show that 77.9% of the samples (N=515) have been applied for summary trial proceeding, and the majority of defendants were found guilty (99.8%). 38.6% of the samples were sentenced with a specific length of prison terms, but in 84.3% of the cases, the court did not respond to the indictment applied by the prosecutor. Logistic regression analysis revealed no statistical correlation of sentence length between indictments and the sentences. One possible explanation could be the correlation was interfered with the litigation practice. In addition, the results indicated that defendants with the factors of "negative attitude towards the courts," "addicted to drugs," "unrepentant,'' ''low continuous retention in the addiction treatment," "harmful to the physical and mental health of nationals and disrupting the social order," and "committing several crimes at the same time" were more likely to be levied a heavier sentence by the court. Therefore, the study suggests that prosecutors may provide more detailed explanations of the above factors to express their opinions on sentencing in order to demonstrate their authority to present proposed charges.

Ku YC, Hsu CY, Chen HY, Wu YT (2021). An Analysis of the difference between the application of conviction for imprisonment on indictment and the court’s pronounced sentence on the Use of Schedule I drugs. Journal of Substance Abuse Research. 6(4), 89 – 111.