Therapeutic jurisprudence

Last updated

Therapeutic jurisprudence (TJ) is an interdisciplinary approach to legal scholarship with the goal of reforming the law so it has a positive impact on the well-being of defendants appearing in court. TJ researchers and practitioners typically make use of social science methods to explore ways in which negative consequences can be reduced, and therapeutic consequences enhanced, without breaching due process requirements. By taking a non-adversarial approach to the administration of justice, judges and lawyers work together to create strategies that help offenders make positive changes in their own lives. Therapeutic jurisprudence has been used successfully in mental health courts and other problem-solving courts, such as drug courts for defendants with addictions. [1]

Contents

Early development

The term was first used by Professor David Wexler, of the University of Arizona Rogers College of Law and University of Puerto Rico School of Law, in a paper delivered to the National Institute of Mental Health in 1987. Constance Backhouse, a leading legal historian from Canada, has published a biography of Wexler and his work. [2] Along with Professor Bruce Winick of the University of Miami School of Law, who developed the area with Wexler, these law professors suggested the need for a new perspective, TJ, to study the extent to which substantive rules, legal procedures, and the role of legal actors (primarily lawyers and judges) produce therapeutic or antitherapeutic consequences for individuals involved in the legal process. In the early 1990s, legal scholars began to use the term when discussing mental health law, including Wexler in his 1990 book Therapeutic Jurisprudence: The Law as a Therapeutic Agent, and Wexler and Winick in their 1991 book, Essays in Therapeutic Jurisprudence . The TJ Approach soon spread beyond mental health law to include TJ work in criminal law, family and juvenile law, health law, tort law, contracts and commercial law, trusts and estates law, disability law, constitutional law, evidence law, and legal profession. In short, TJ became a mental health approach to law generally. [3] [4]

The approach was soon applied to the way various legal actors—judges, lawyers, police officers, and psychologists and criminal justice professionals—play their roles, suggesting ways of doing so that would diminish unintended antitherapeutic consequences and increase the psychological well-being of those who come into contact with these legal figures. In 1999 in a Notre Dame Law Review article [5] TJ was applied to drug treatment courts (DTC) for the first time and the authors asserted that DTCs were TJ in action and that TJ provided the jurisprudential underpinnings of DTCs. TJ has emerged as the theoretical foundation for the increasing number of "problem-solving courts" that have transformed the role of the judiciary. These include, in addition to DTCs, domestic violence courts, mental health courts, re-entry courts, teen courts, and community courts. [6]

Some countries embraced the TJ movement more than others: particularly the United States where it originated, as well as Canada, Australia and New Zealand, with England slower until recently, while nevertheless developing some problem-solving courts. [7] More recently, TJ concepts have entered into the systems of various other countries, such as Israel, Pakistan, [8] India, and Japan. Now, the field is fully international and robust, as evidenced by the recent launch of the International Society for Therapeutic Jurisprudence, [9] a society with a comprehensive and authoritative website.

Reframing roles

Therapeutic Jurisprudence also has been applied in an effort to reframe the role of the lawyer. It envisions lawyers practicing with an ethic of care and heightened interpersonal skills, who value the psychological well being of their clients as well as their legal rights and interests, and to actively seek to prevent legal problems through creative drafting and problem-solving approaches. [10] [11] TJ also has begun to transform legal education, in particular clinical legal education. [12]

Mainstreaming

Traditionally, TJ was closely associated with problem-solving courts, such as drug treatment courts, because such courts were designed to invite the use of TJ practices (such as procedural justice, judge-client personal interaction, demonstration of empathy, active listening, and the like). Many desire the expansion of problem-solving courts, but for a number of reasons, especially economic ones, expansion on a large scale seems unlikely; in fact, in some jurisdictions, economic factors have even led to the elimination of such courts. For these and other reasons, a current interest on the part of many TJ scholars and proponents is to "mainstream" TJ—that is, to try to apply TJ practices and principles in "ordinary" courts, especially in criminal, juvenile, and perhaps family matters.

In order to mainstream TJ, a first analytical step is to see to what extent existing provisions of current codes are "friendly"to TJ—that is, whether their legal structure is sufficient to permit the introduction of TJ practices. If so, educational programs should be instituted to discuss how the law may be implemented in a more therapeutic manner. If not, a discussion would be necessary about the desirability and feasibility of legal reform. The analytical methodology in use here employs the metaphor of "wine" and "bottles", where the TJ practices and techniques are the wine and the governing legal structures are the bottles. [13] The mainstreaming project is facilitated by a Blog entitled Therapeutic Jurisprudence in the Mainstream. [14]

Therapeutic jurisprudence has been described as a subset of legal psychology, meaning the scientific study of mind and behavior as it affects or is affected by the law. As well, the term psychological jurisprudence has been used to describe study of the law as it is affected by and affects mind and behavior. [15] Another related concept is restorative justice. [16] The fields of forensic psychology and forensic psychiatry also operate at the juncture of law and the mind.

The idea that the law can have a therapeutic role should not be confused with any idea that psychological therapies should be attempted to be used for legal ends (such as coercion) rather than clinically for clinical reasons. TJ theorists have also warned against the legal system uncritically accepting psychological experts and theories, and to not allow legal issues to masquerade as clinical ones if they are not.

Coming from the opposite direction, a related approach now dubbed 'jurisprudent psychology' (originally therapy) looks at whether psychological interventions are conducted fairly and consistently with legal concepts of justice. [17]

Therapeutic jurisprudence is also linked to the positive criminology perspective, [18] which is a conceptual approach to criminology that places an emphasis on social inclusion and on forces at individual, group, social and spiritual levels that are associated with the limiting of crime.

Notes

  1. ↑ Therapeutic Jurisprudence, Oxford Bibliographies
  2. ↑ Constance B. Backhouse, An Introduction to David Wexler, the Person Behind Therapeutic Jurisprudence, 2016, https://ssrn.com/abstract=2747488
  3. ↑ Wexler and Winick, 1996, Law in a Therapeutic Key: Developments in Therapeutic Jurisprudence.
  4. ↑ David B. Wexler, The Development of Therapeutic Jurisprudence: From Theory to Practice, 68 Revista Juridica Universidad de Puerto Rico 691-705 (1999).
  5. ↑ Hora, Schma and Rosenthal, “Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Drug Treatment Court Movement: Revolutionizing the Criminal Justice System’s Response to Drug Abuse and Crime in America,” 74 NDLR 439 (1999)
  6. ↑ Winick and Wexler, 2003, Judging in a Therapeutic Key: Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Courts.
  7. ↑ The International Problem-Solving Court Movement James L. Nolan, Princeton University Press, 31 Mar 2009, pg 77
  8. ↑ Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Legal Education in Pakistan: A Quest for Innovation in Study of Law to Mend Attitudes of Law Professionals Towards Litigants Muhammad Amir Munir, Pakistan Law Journal, 2008
  9. ↑ "Home".
  10. ↑ Stolle, Wexler, and Winick, 2000, Practicing Therapeutic Jurisprudence: Law as a Helping Profession.
  11. ↑ Wexler, Rehabilitating Lawyers: Principles of Therapeutic Jurisprudence for Criminal Law Practice (Carolina Academic Press 2008).
  12. ↑ 2005 symposium issue of the St. Thomas University Law Review, "Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Clinical Legal Education and Skills Training."
  13. ↑ Wexler, David B. (2014-06-26). "New Wine in New Bottles: The Need to Sketch a Therapeutic Jurisprudence 'Code' of Proposed Criminal Processes and Practices".{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  14. ↑ "Therapeutic Jurisprudence in the Mainstream BLOG".
  15. ↑ Legal Psychology and Therapeutic Jurisprudence Mark A. Small, Saint Louis University Law Journal, Spring 1993, 37
  16. ↑ Non-Adversarial Justice: Resources for alternative dispute resolution, restorative justice, therapeutic jurisprudence and commercial arbitration Retrieved March 2014
  17. ↑ Criminal Mental Health and Disability Law, Evidence and Testimony: A Comprehensive Reference Manual for Lawyers, Judges, and Criminal Justice Professionals John Parry, American Bar Association, 1 Jan 2009, pg 49-
  18. ↑ Wexler, D. B. (2013). Getting and giving: What therapeutic jurisprudence can get from and give to positive criminology. Arizona Legal Studies. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2220509

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Restorative justice</span> Restitution with input from victims and offenders

Restorative justice is an approach to justice that aims to repair the harm done to victims. In doing so, practitioners work to ensure that offenders take responsibility for their actions, to understand the harm they have caused, to give them an opportunity to redeem themselves, and to discourage them from causing further harm. For victims, the goal is to give them an active role in the process, and to reduce feelings of anxiety and powerlessness.

Applied psychology is the use of psychological methods and findings of scientific psychology to solve practical problems of human and animal behavior and experience. Educational and organizational psychology, business management, law, health, product design, ergonomics, behavioural psychology, psychology of motivation, psychoanalysis, neuropsychology, psychiatry and mental health are just a few of the areas that have been influenced by the application of psychological principles and scientific findings. Some of the areas of applied psychology include counseling psychology, industrial and organizational psychology, engineering psychology, occupational health psychology, legal psychology, school psychology, sports psychology, community psychology, neuropsychology, medical psychology and clinical psychology, evolutionary psychology, human factors, forensic psychology and traffic psychology. In addition, a number of specialized areas in the general area of psychology have applied branches. However, the lines between sub-branch specializations and major applied psychology categories are often mixed or in some cases blurred. For example, a human factors psychologist might use a cognitive psychology theory. This could be described as human factor psychology or as applied cognitive psychology. When applied psychology is used in the treatment of behavioral disorders there are many experimental approaches to try and treat an individual. This type of psychology can be found in many of the subbranches in other fields of psychology.

Forensic psychology is the application of scientific knowledge and methods to help answer legal questions arising in criminal, civil, contractual, or other judicial proceedings. Forensic psychology includes research on various psychology-law topics, such as jury selection, reducing systemic racism in criminal law; eyewitness testimony, evaluating competency to stand trial; or assessing military veterans for service-connected disability compensation. The American Psychological Association's Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists reference several psychology subdisciplines, such as social, clinical, experimental, counseling, and neuropsychology.

Criminal psychology, also referred to as criminological psychology, is the study of the views, thoughts, intentions, actions and reactions of criminals and suspects. It is a subfield of criminology and applied psychology.

Legal psychology is a field focused on the application of psychological principles within the legal system and its interactions with individuals. Professionals in this area are involved in understanding, assessing, and questioning suspects, evaluating potential jurors, investigating crimes and crime scenes, conducting forensic investigations, and handling other legal contexts. The term "legal psychology" distinguishes this practical branch of psychology from the more theory-oriented field of clinical psychology.

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

Drug courts are problem-solving courts that take a public health approach to criminal offending 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. Instead of punishment, their purpose is to address one of the underlying drivers of crime and, in the process, reduce the use of imprisonment, potentially leading to substantial cost-savings. Drug courts aim to do this by incentivizing or mandating offenders into addiction treatment combined with frequent drug testing and regular monitoring by the judge.

<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.

Therapeutic community is a participative, group-based approach to long-term mental illness, personality disorders and drug addiction. The approach was usually residential, with the clients and therapists living together, but increasingly residential units have been superseded by day units. It is based on milieu therapy principles, and includes group psychotherapy as well as practical activities.

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.

Bruce J. Winick was the Silvers-Rubenstein Distinguished Professor of Law and Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the University of Miami in Coral Gables, Florida, where he had taught since 1974. He was an internationally known scholar and lecturer in mental health law and in law and psychology. The co-founder of the school of social enquiry known as therapeutic jurisprudence, Winick is Director of the University of Miami School of Law’s recently established Therapeutic Jurisprudence Center. Winick also had a long career as a civil rights lawyer, and had served as an expert witness on a variety of law-related issues. Winick died in 2010 after a long battle with cancer.

David B. Wexler is a Professor of Law at the University of Puerto Rico in San Juan, Puerto Rico, a Distinguished Research Professor of Law Emeritus at the James E. Rogers College of Law, Tucson, Arizona, and an Honorary President of the International Society for Therapeutic Jurisprudence.

The Center for Justice Innovation, formerly 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.

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.

Psychology encompasses a vast domain, and includes many different approaches to the study of mental processes and behavior. Below are the major areas of inquiry that taken together constitute psychology. A comprehensive list of the sub-fields and areas within psychology can be found at the list of psychology topics and list of psychology disciplines.

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

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).

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. There were over 2,800 problem-solving courts in 2008, intended to provide a method of resolving the problem in order to reduce recidivism.

<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.

Criminal justice reform seeks to address structural issues in criminal justice systems such as racial profiling, police brutality, overcriminalization, mass incarceration, and recidivism. Criminal justice reform can take place at any point where the criminal justice system intervenes in citizens’ lives, including lawmaking, policing, and sentencing.

Bala Reddy is a Singaporean senior lawyer. He is presently the senior principal district judge and director of the Community Justice and Tribunals division in the State Courts of Singapore. Reddy is an authority in international criminal justice systems and served as a legal expert for the United Nations Development Programme as well as the United Nations Convention against Corruption. Prior to his judicial appointment to the State Courts in 2014, Reddy was the Chief Prosecutor in the Attorney-General's Chambers of Singapore during Justice Steven Chong's tenure as Attorney-General.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Anarchist criminology</span> School of thought in criminology

Anarchist criminology is a school of thought in criminology that draws on influences and insights from anarchist theory and practice. Building on insights from anarchist theorists including Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Peter Kropotkin, anarchist criminologists' approach to the causes of crime emphasises what they argue are the harmful effects of the state. Anarchist criminologists, a number of whom have produced work in the field since the 1970s, have critiqued the political underpinnings of criminology and emphasised the political significance of forms of crime not ordinarily considered to be political. Anarchists propose the abolition of the state; accordingly, anarchist criminologists tend to argue in favour of forms of non-state justice. The principles and arguments of anarchist criminology share certain features with those of Marxist criminology, critical criminology and other schools of thought within the discipline, while also differing in certain respects.

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.