Problem-solving courts in the United States

Last updated

Problem-solving courts (PSC) address the underlying problems that contribute to criminal behavior and are a current trend in the legal system of the United States. In 1989, a judge in Miami began to take a hands-on approach to drug addicts, ordering them into treatment, rather than perpetuating the revolving door of court and prison. The result was creation of drug court, a diversion program. That same concept began to be applied to difficult situations where legal, social and human problems mesh. [1] There were over 2,800 problem-solving courts in 2008, [2] intended to provide a method of resolving the problem in order to reduce recidivism. [1]

Contents

Efforts

Judith Kaye was Chief Judge of New York from 1993 to 2008 where she was most responsible for implementing court reform utilizing problem-solving courts in her state, one of the first in the nation. She also co-founded the Center for Court Innovation, [3] a non-profit think tank headquartered in New York that helps courts and criminal justice agencies decrease crime, provide aid to victims and increase the public's confidence in the justice system. [4]

Center for Court Innovation researchers explored whether problem-solving justice always requires a specialized court or if core principles and practices from these specialized courts are transferable to conventional courts. [5] After interviewing judges, attorneys and representatives from probation departments and service providers, researchers concluded that a number of principles—such as judicial monitoring and linking offenders to services—could be transferable. The study, conducted in cooperation with the Collaborative Justice Courts Advisory Committee of the Judicial Council of California, was the first of its kind in the country. [6] In 2005, The New Press published Good Courts: The Case for Problem-Solving Justice. [7] The first book to describe the problem-solving court movement in detail, Good Courts features profiles of Center demonstration projects. The book is being used in law schools and public policy schools, due in part to a law school course on problem-solving justice that the Center piloted at Fordham Law School. [8] [9]

The National Association of Drug Court Professionals had more than 25,000 members working in 2,663 drug courts and 1,219 other problem-solving courts as of late 2011. Their annual conference offers education and training from experts for problem-solving professionals world-wide. [10]

Both problem-solving courts and the use of therapeutic jurisprudence greatly improved the outcomes of most cases. Programs have been established for teen court, DWI court, re-entry court, [11] community court, domestic violence court, sex offense court, [12] mental health court, and veterans' court. [13]

Principles

According to the Center for Court Innovation, there are six principles required for problem-solving courts to be effective. There must be better information available to the staff through training, and comprehensive defendant information for justice officials. Community engagement with the public will encourage cooperation of witnesses, jurors, and community watch groups, and foster trust. Collaboration between legal officials (judges/prosecutors/attorneys/probation officers), social service providers, victim groups and schools will keep everyone focused on the goal. Individualized Justice links offenders to the services they need and provides services for victims to aid in their recovery. Offenders must be held accountable with compliance monitoring and consequences for non-compliance. Outcomes need to be analyzed for cost versus benefit, and to provide continuous improvement of the process. [14]

Differences

Problem-solving courts look just like traditional courts, but defendants are referred to as "clients" and the judge has extensive knowledge about the client and talks with them directly. A client placed in a treatment program is monitored by the judge for months or years, and will return to court periodically to assess progress and/or problems. The judge can order the client to serve jail time as a punishment while in a treatment program, and the judge decides when the client is to be released from the program. [1]

Criticism

A 2005 article in the New York Times noted that because judges have total discretion, the results can be inconsistent. When that situation existed in the criminal justice system, mandatory sentencing guidelines were instituted. Legal scholars have warned that judges may also force their values upon defendants from different cultures. Those critical of the system say many treatment programs are unnecessarily harsh, and any deviation from the rules is punished. [1]

Some public defenders have criticized the use of problem-solving courts because accused persons who accept intervention are implicitly treated as guilty; the courts do not allow an accused person to receive a determination of innocence or guilt. [1] New York Supreme Court Judge James A. Yates has characterized their use as a trend toward "an inquisitorial system of justice". [1]

Judges in problem-solving courts need other skills beyond a knowledge of the law; they also must sometimes function as a social worker, therapist, and accountant. Law schools have only recently begun to provide courses on problem-solving justice, [1] [9] and New York Judge Fern Fisher commented that not all judges have the patience and attitude necessary to be effective. [1]

Federal guidance

The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) is the branch of the U.S. Department of Justice tasked with proving the concept and providing guidelines to state court systems that seek to implement a program. The BJA identified ten projects and provided funding to demonstrate the theories in practice and document their results. They also provide hands-on assistance for any judicial entity seeking to establish a problem-solving court. [15]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal justice</span> Justice to those who have committed crimes

Criminal justice is the delivery of justice to those who have been accused of committing crimes. The criminal justice system is a series of government agencies and institutions. Goals include the rehabilitation of offenders, preventing other crimes, and moral support for victims. The primary institutions of the criminal justice system are the police, prosecution and defense lawyers, the courts and the prisons system.

Probation in criminal law is a period of supervision over an offender, ordered by the court often in lieu of incarceration.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Drug court</span> Type of court

Drug courts are a type of "specialized court" in the United States that provide a sentencing alternative of treatment combined with supervision for people living with serious substance use. The purpose of this is to aid putting a stop to crime at the source. Drug courts are problem-solving courts that take a public health approach using a specialized model in which the judiciary, prosecution, defense bar, probation, law enforcement, mental health, social service, and treatment communities work together to help addicted offenders into long-term recovery. Drugs courts often aim to do this by utilizing and mandating treatment from addiction specialists and programs such as Narcotic Anonymous, Alcoholics Anonymous, as well as other support groups.

DWI courts are a form of court that exists in some United States legal jurisdictions, that use substance-abuse interventions and treatment with defendants who plead guilty of driving while intoxicated or impaired. DUI courts may focus on repeat offenders and drivers with very high levels of blood alcohol at the time of the offense. As of December 2011, there were approximately 192 designated DUI courts in the United States, and approximately 406 drug courts that also accept DUI offenders.

A teen court is a problem-solving court within the juvenile justice system where teens charged with certain types of offenses can be sentenced by a jury of same-aged peers. Their purpose is to provide an alternative disposition for juveniles who have committed a delinquent act, have committed a minor offense, or have been charged with a misdemeanor, and are otherwise eligible for diversion. Depending on their training, community support, and agreements with traditional court systems, most teen or youth courts are recognized as valid, legal venues for the process of hearing cases, sentencing and sentence fulfillment. Teen courts and their verdicts are not authorized by public law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">American juvenile justice system</span> Aspect of American justice system

The American juvenile justice system is the primary system used to handle minors who are convicted of criminal offenses. The system is composed of a federal and many separate state, territorial, and local jurisdictions, with states and the federal government sharing sovereign police power under the common authority of the United States Constitution. The juvenile justice system intervenes in delinquent behavior through police, court, and correctional involvement, with the goal of rehabilitation. Youth and their guardians can face a variety of consequences including probation, community service, youth court, youth incarceration and alternative schooling. The juvenile justice system, similar to the adult system, operates from a belief that intervening early in delinquent behavior will deter adolescents from engaging in criminal behavior as adults.

Collateral consequences of criminal conviction are the additional civil state penalties, mandated by statute, that attach to a criminal conviction. They are not part of the direct consequences of criminal conviction, such as prison, fines, or probation. They are the further civil actions by the state that are triggered as a consequence of the conviction.

Mental health courts link offenders who would ordinarily be prison-bound to long-term community-based treatment. They rely on mental health assessments, individualized treatment plans, and ongoing judicial monitoring to address both the mental health needs of offenders and public safety concerns of communities. Like other problem-solving courts such as drug courts, domestic violence courts, and community courts, mental health courts seek to address the underlying problems that contribute to criminal behavior.

Therapeutic jurisprudence (TJ) studies law as a social force which inevitably gives rise to unintended consequences, which may be either beneficial (therapeutic) or harmful (anti-therapeutic). These consequences flow from the operation of legal rules or legal procedures—or from the behavior of legal actors. TJ researchers and practitioners typically make use of social science methods and data to study the extent to which a legal rule or practice affects the psychological well-being of the people it affects, and then explore ways in which anti-therapeutic consequences can be reduced, and therapeutic consequences enhanced, without breaching due process requirements.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bureau of Justice Assistance</span>

The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, within the United States Department of Justice. BJA provides leadership and assistance to local criminal justice programs that improve and reinforce the nation's criminal justice system.

In several countries including Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and South Africa, a community court is a neighborhood-focused problem-solving court that applies a problem-solving approach to local crime and safety concerns. Community courts can take many forms, but all strive to create new relationships, both within the justice system and with outside stakeholders such as residents, merchants, churches and schools. Community courts emphasize collaboration, crime prevention, and improved outcomes, including lower recidivism and safer communities. Community courts are also sometimes referred to as community or neighborhood justice centers.

A diversion program, also known as a pretrial diversion program or pretrial intervention program, in the criminal justice system is a form of pretrial sentencing that helps remedy behavior leading to the arrest. Administered by the judicial or law enforcement systems, they often allow the offender to avoid conviction and include a rehabilitation program to avoid future criminal acts. Availability and the operation of such systems differ in different countries.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Center for Court Innovation</span> U.S. non-profit justice reform organization

The Center for Court Innovation is an American non-profit organization headquartered in New York, founded in 1996, with a stated goal of creating a more effective and human justice system by offering aid to victims, reducing crime, and improving public trust in justice.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Midtown Community Court</span> New York City court for quality-of-life offenses

The Midtown Community Court is a part of the New York City Criminal Court that focuses on quality-of-life offenses, such as prostitution, shoplifting, farebeating and vandalism, with a view toward rehabilitation instead of punishment. For example, judges may order offenders to perform community service and refer them to such social services as drug treatment, mental health counseling, and job training.

Specialized domestic violence courts are designed to improve victim safety and enhance defendant accountability. There is no one set definition of a specialized violence court, although these types of courts can be either civil or criminal and typically hear the majority of an area's domestic violence cases on a separate calendar. Additionally, these courts are typically led by specially assigned judges who can make more informed and consistent decisions based on their expertise and experience with the unique legal and personal issues in domestic violence cases.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ginger Lerner-Wren</span>

Judge Ginger Lerner-Wren is a county court judge in the Criminal Division of the 17th Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida. She is an adjunct professor, Nova Southeastern University, Criminal Justice Institute, Doctoral (On-line).

Drug courts are specialized court docket programs that aim to help participants recover from substance use disorder to reduce future criminal activity. Drug courts are used as an alternative to incarceration and aim to reduce the costs of repeatedly processing low‐level, non‐violent offenders through courts, jails, and prisons. Drug courts are usually managed by a nonadversarial and multidisciplinary team including judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, community corrections, social workers and treatment service professionals. Drug court participants include criminal defendants and offenders, juvenile offenders, and parents with pending child welfare cases.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Incarceration prevention in the United States</span> Methods to reduce prison populations in America

Incarceration prevention refers to a variety of methods aimed at reducing prison populations and costs while fostering enhanced social structures. Due to the nature of incarceration in the United States today caused by issues leading to increased incarceration rates, there are methods aimed at preventing the incarceration of at-risk populations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Decarceration in the United States</span> Overview article

Decarceration in the United States involves government policies and community campaigns aimed at reducing the number of people held in custody or custodial supervision. Decarceration, the opposite of incarceration, also entails reducing the rate of imprisonment at the federal, state and municipal level. As of 2019, the US was home to 5% of the global population but 25% of its prisoners, until the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. possessed the world's highest incarceration rate: 655 inmates for every 100,000 people, enough inmates to equal the populations of Philadelphia or Houston. The COVID-19 pandemic has reinvigorated the discussion surrounding decarceration as the spread of the virus poses a threat to the health of those incarcerated in prisons and detention centers where the ability to properly socially distance is limited. As a result of the push for decarceration in the wake of the pandemic, as of 2022, the incarceration rate in the United States declined to 505 per 100,000; meaning that the United States no longer has the highest incarceration rate in the world.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stephanie Rhoades</span>

The Honorable Stephanie Rhoades served as a District Court Judge in Anchorage, Alaska, from 1992 to 2017. Judge Stephanie Rhoades founded the Anchorage Coordinated Resources Project (ACRP), better known as the Anchorage Mental Health Court (AMHC). AMHC was the first mental health court established in Alaska and the fourth mental health court established in the United States. Legal scholars suggest in the Alaska Law Review that mental health courts are to be considered therapeutic jurisprudence and define crime that deserves therapeutic justice as “a manifestation of illness of the offender’s body or character.” They follow that crime that falls under this definition “should be addressed through treatment by professionals.”

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Kaufman, Leslie; Eaton, Leslie (April 26, 2005). "In Problem-Solving Court, Judges Turn Therapist". New York Times. Retrieved 10 April 2012.
  2. ↑ Wolf, Robert V. (Summer 2009). "A New Way of doing Business" (PDF). Journal of Court Innovation: 1. Retrieved 11 April 2012.
  3. ↑ "The Center for Court Innovation". Courtinnovation.org. October 28, 2009. Retrieved April 10, 2012.
  4. ↑ "A Decade of Change: The First 10 Years of the Center for Court Innovation" (PDF). Center for Court Innovation.
  5. ↑ "Applying the problem-solving model outside of problem-solving courts" (PDF). Judicature.
  6. ↑ "California's Collaborative Justice Courts" (PDF). Courtinfo.ca.gov. Retrieved May 21, 2012.
  7. ↑ Berman, Greg (2005). Good Courts: The Case For Problem-solving Justice (9781565849730): Greg Berman, John Feinblatt, Sarah Glazer: Books. ISBN   1565849736.
  8. ↑ "Research/Good Courts: The Case for Problem-Solving Justice". Center for Court Innovation. 16 October 2007. Retrieved 10 May 2012.
  9. 1 2 "Problem-Solving Justice: A Law School Course" (PDF). Retrieved January 6, 2012.
  10. ↑ "NADCP 18th Annual Training Conference". Policy Options, Inc. Retrieved 30 March 2012.
  11. ↑ Wolf, Robert V. "Reentry Courts: Looking Ahead" (PDF). Bureau of Justice Assistance. Retrieved 10 April 2012.
  12. ↑ Herman, Kristine. "Sex Offense Courts: The Next Step in Community Management?". Center for Court Innovation. Retrieved 28 March 2012.
  13. ↑ McMichael, William H. (November 1, 2011). "The Battle on the Home Front: Special Courts Turn to Vets to Help Other Vets". ABA Journal. Retrieved 16 March 2012.
  14. ↑ Wolf, Robert V. "Principles of Problem Solving Justice". Bureau of Justice Assistance. Retrieved 28 March 2012.
  15. ↑ "Problem-Solving Justice". Center for Court Innovation. Retrieved 16 March 2012.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.