Beyond Therapy: Problem‐Solving Courts and the Deliberative Democratic State

2008 ◽  
Vol 33 (04) ◽  
pp. 853-893 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rekha Mirchandani
Keyword(s):  
Domestic Violence ◽  
Problem Solving ◽  
Criminal Behavior ◽  
Cultural Transformation ◽  
Mental Health Courts ◽  
Democratic State ◽  
Problem Solving Courts ◽  
New Institutions ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Domestic Violence Courts

Problem‐solving courts (drug courts, community courts, domestic violence courts, and mental health courts), unlike traditional courts, attempt to get at the root of the individual and social problems that motivate criminal behavior. Theoretical understandings of problem‐solving courts are mostly Foucauldian; proponents argue that these new institutions employ therapeutic techniques that encourage individuals to self‐engineer in ways that subtly increase state power. The Foucauldian approach captures only some elements of problem‐solving courts and does not fully theorize the revolution in justice that these courts present. Problem‐solving courts, domestic violence courts in particular, orient not just around individual change but also around social change and cultural transformation. Combining the Foucauldian idea of a therapeutic state (as developed by James Nolan) with an understanding of the deliberative democratic mechanisms of larger‐scale structural transformation (found in Habermas and others) leads to a more balanced and empirically open orientation to the actual motivations, goals, and achievements of problem‐solving courts.

Problem-Solving Courts and the Criminal Justice System

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
David DeMatteo ◽  
Kirk Heilbrun ◽  
Shelby Arnold ◽  
Alice Thornewill
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Problem Solving ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Behavioral Health ◽  
Criminal Behavior ◽  
Justice System ◽  
The United States ◽  
Team Approach ◽  
Problem Solving Courts

Individuals with behavioral health disorders are significantly overrepresented in the criminal justice system. The incarceration of offenders with substance use disorders and mental illness has contributed to dramatic growth in the incarcerated population in the United States. Problem-solving courts provide judicially supervised treatment for behavioral health needs commonly found among offenders, including substance abuse and mental health, and they treat a variety of offender populations. By addressing the problems that underlie criminal behavior, problem-solving courts seek to decrease the “revolving door” that results when offender needs are not addressed. Problem-solving courts use a team approach among the judge, defense attorney, prosecutor, and treatment providers, which is a paradigm shift in how the justice system treats offenders with special needs. Offenders in problem-solving courts are held accountable for their behavior while being provided with judicially supervised treatment designed to reduce the risk of reoffending. Despite the proliferation of problem-solving courts, there are unanswered questions about how they function, how effective they are, and the most promising ways to implement problem-solving justice. Problem-Solving Courts and the Criminal Justice System is the first book to focus broadly on problem-solving courts. The changing landscape of the criminal justice system, recent development of problem-solving courts, and ongoing shift toward offender rehabilitation underscore the need for this book. This book provides those in the fields of mental health, criminal justice, law, and related fields with a comprehensive foundation of information related to the role of problem-solving courts in reforming the criminal justice system. This book also provides researchers, academics, administrators, and policy-makers with an overview of the existing research on problem-solving courts, including the challenges faced by researchers when examining these courts.

Methodological Challenges in Researching Problem-Solving Courts

2019 ◽  
pp. 157-170
Author(s):  
David DeMatteo ◽  
Kirk Heilbrun ◽  
Alice Thornewill ◽  
Shelby Arnold
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Problem Solving ◽  
Empirical Research ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Drug Courts ◽  
Criminal Recidivism ◽  
Random Assignment ◽  
Mental Health Courts ◽  
Methodological Challenges ◽  
Problem Solving Courts

This chapter discusses the methodological challenges faced by researchers attempting to study the operations and effectiveness of problem-solving courts. Although researchers have conducted a great deal of research on drug courts, and research on mental health courts is continuing to grow, there is relatively little research on all other types of problem-solving courts. This chapter discusses the current research landscape and describes how research on these courts can be challenging for a variety of ethical and logistical reasons. Specifically, this chapter highlights the difficulties associated with conducting valid empirical research on problem-solving courts, including an overview of difficulties with random assignment, skewed samples, outcome measures, and jurisdictional differences. The authors also discuss the disconnect between indicators of progress used in some problem-solving courts and reductions in criminal recidivism.

Other Specialty Courts

2019 ◽  
pp. 113-133
Author(s):  
David DeMatteo ◽  
Kirk Heilbrun ◽  
Alice Thornewill ◽  
Shelby Arnold
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Domestic Violence ◽  
Problem Solving ◽  
The United States ◽  
Drug Courts ◽  
Political Climate ◽  
Problem Solving Courts ◽  
Specialty Courts ◽  
Treatment Courts ◽  
Community Courts

The development and success of drug courts resulted in the development of many other types of problem-solving courts. This chapter provides an overview of these other types of problem-solving courts in the United States, including (but not limited to) domestic violence courts, family dependency treatment courts, homelessness courts, truancy courts, veterans courts, DUI/DWI courts, and community courts. This chapter summarizes the sparse research that has been conducted on these courts and considers the future of these types of problem-solving courts. Specifically, this chapter considers whether there is a need for so many highly specific problem-solving courts, how these courts can expand their reach (and whether they should), aspects of these courts that are in need of additional research, and how these courts can function most effectively in today’s economic and political climate.

THE SCIENCE OF JUDICIAL PSYCHOLOGY

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 78-87
Author(s):  
Petru TĂRCHILĂ
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Behavior ◽  
Cultural Context ◽  
Scientific Explanation ◽  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Psychosocial Characteristics ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Behavioral Profile ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Determining Factor ◽  
Determinant Factor

Judicial psychology is the science that analyzes and tries to understand the criminal phenomenon in general and its determinant factor in particular, by the complexity of factors that generate it and by the diversity of its forms of manifestation. Although the determining factor of criminal behavior is always subjective being generated by the psychic of the offender, this aspect must be correlated with the context in which it manifests itself: social, economic, cultural context etc. Judicial psychology investigates the behavior of the individual in all its aspects, seeking a scientific explanation of the mechanisms and factors enhancing criminal favors, thus enabling the identification of the preventive measures to be taken to reduce the categories of offenses. It studies the psycho-behavioral profile of the offender, identifying the causes that determined its behavior in order to take preventive measures.The domain of judicial psychology is mainly deviance, conduct that departs from the moral or legal norms that are dominant in a given culture. The object of judicial psychology is the criminal act, correlated with the psychosocial characteristics of the participants in the judicial action (offender, victim, witness, investigator, magistrate, lawyer, civil party, educator, etc.). The science of judicial psychology also analyzes how these characteristics appear and manifest themselves in concrete and special conditions of their interaction in three phases of the criminal act: the pre-criminal phase, the actual criminal phase and the post-criminal phase.

An Experiment in Problem Solving

1951 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 184-197 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. W. Whitfield
Keyword(s):  
Problem Solving ◽  
Experimental Work ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Qualitative Difference ◽  
Trial And Error ◽  
Qualitative Nature ◽  
The Individual

Trial-and-error problems are described in terms of “stimulus” difficulty, which is a measure of the number of possible modes of response left to the individual when all the information given is taken into account; and “phenomenal” difficulty, which is a measure derived from the individual's performance. An experiment is described in which three types of problem were presented to human subjects. In all three problems the stimulus difficulty was calculable, stage by stage, in the solution. The problems differed in this stimulus difficulty and also in the qualitative nature of the information provided—from unequivocal to conditional. It is shown that the qualitative difference of the nature of the information bears most relationship to phenomenal difficulty. Some observations are made on the modes of solution adopted, and further experimental work is suggested.

Observation: A Vehicle for Generating Information between Partners in Problem Solving

1976 ◽  
Vol 159 (4) ◽  
pp. 49-61
Author(s):  
Jonathan Clark ◽  
Pierre Johannet
Keyword(s):  
Problem Solving ◽  
Direct Experience ◽  
Natural Processes ◽  
Problem Resolution ◽  
New Perspective ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Search For Information ◽  
Direct Encounter

The individual employs two basic sources for perception: direct experience and the interpretations of the culture. Natural processes can lead individuals who seek to resolve problems together to excessive reliance on socialized perceptions while overlooking valuable direct experience. As the partners establish assumptions, they may prematurely cease the search for information which could lead to a new perspective on the problem. A cycle is mobilized in which information generated by direct encounter fails to check powerful assumptions. The authors offer an observational model through which partners share both their experiences and their interpretations of these experiences. The model is designed to reduce the power of assumptions and to restore the influence of direct experience in problem resolution.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document