Therapeutic Jurisprudence in Swift and Certain Probation

2020 ◽  
Vol 64 (12) ◽  
pp. 1768-1785 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelly Frailing ◽  
Brandi Alfonso ◽  
Rae Taylor

While the manifestation of therapeutic jurisprudence in specialty courts such as mental health and drug courts has received attention in the literature, there is little scholarship on the manifestation and function of therapeutic jurisprudence in probation settings. This study examines therapeutic jurisprudence in the context of a HOPE-based probation program called Swift and Certain probation. We observed status hearings and surveyed participants on their perceptions of the program for over 2 years. We found that therapeutic jurisprudence was manifested in the judge’s liberal use of praise during status hearings, which appeared to be an important part of participants’ positive perceptions of him and of procedural justice more generally. It was also manifested, though less directly, in interactions and relationships participants have with their probation officers. We conclude with suggestions for the implementation of therapeutic justice practices in Swift and Certain and similar probation programs.

2021 ◽  
pp. 1037969X2098510
Author(s):  
Megan Beatrice

The upward trend of incarceration rates persists among women in Victoria, with increasingly punitive sentencing and onerous new bail laws. At the same time, the complex needs of women in the criminal justice system are becoming the focus of greater study and documentation. This article presents the case for a specialist women’s list under the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria jurisdiction, based in principles of therapeutic jurisprudence and procedural justice. While the list aims to reduce offending by addressing criminogenic factors unique to women, the picture is far bigger; the Victorian Women’s Court ultimately promotes justice for women who commit crimes.


2021 ◽  
pp. 009385482110084
Author(s):  
Gina M. Vincent ◽  
Rachael T. Perrault ◽  
Dara C. Drawbridge ◽  
Gretchen O. Landry ◽  
Thomas Grisso

This study examined the feasibility of and fidelity to risk/needs assessment, mental health screening, and risk-need-responsivity (RNR)-based case planning within juvenile probation in two states. The researcher-guided implementation effort included the Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument-2 (MAYSI-2), Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY), and policies to prioritize criminogenic needs while using mental health services only when warranted. Data from 53 probation officers (POs) and 553 youths indicated three of five offices had high fidelity to administration and case planning policies. The interrater reliability ( n = 85; intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC][A, 1] = .92 [Northern state] and .80 [Southern state]) and predictive validity ( n = 455; Exp[B] = 1.83) of SAVRY risk ratings were significant. There was an overreliance on mental health services; 48% of youth received these referrals when only 20% screened as having mental health needs. Barriers to fidelity to RNR practices in some offices included assessments not being conducted before disposition, lack of service availability, and limited buy-in from a few stakeholders.


2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 262-286
Author(s):  
Cindy Brooks Dollar

Court systems have a unique and powerful impact on the lives of persons who enter into them. In recognition of some of the deleterious effects of traditional court models, scholars and practitioners advocate for alternative court processes, especially through the implementation of specialty courts. Family court is a type of specialized court, which handles legal disputes among family members. The stated mission of family courts reflects notions of therapeutic jurisprudence; however, scarce research examines if therapeutic jurisprudence is actually practiced in family court settings. Using 12 months of observational data of over 100 hearings, the present study assesses the extent to which principles of therapeutic jurisprudence are apparent in court proceedings. I find that although therapeutically just interactions are common in family court, some encounters remain antitherapeutic or damaging. The implication of family court’s current operation within the broader “justice” system is discussed.


1986 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. 220-222
Author(s):  
Lord Colville

Professor Bluglass has recently written in the Bulletin on this subject. Articles have also appeared in the British Medical Journal by Dr Hamilton and Professor Kendell. Comments were invited on both documents: to the DHSS on the Code and to MHAC on their paper. To judge by the articles referred to, clarification of the background to and function of both documents is urgently needed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document