In This Article Problem-Solving Courts

  • Introduction
  • General Overviews
  • Anthologies
  • Symposia
  • Reference Resources
  • History
  • Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Restorative Justice
  • Practical Efficacy
  • Race and Class Issues
  • Social and Legal Critiques
  • Challenging the Court-Centered Model
  • The Problem of Net Widening
  • Proposals for Reform
  • Extension to Foreign Jurisdictions

Criminology Problem-Solving Courts
by
Eric J. Miller
  • LAST MODIFIED: 14 April 2011
  • DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780195396607-0073

Introduction

Problem-solving courts are a recent and increasingly widespread alternative to traditional models of case management in criminal and civil courts. Defying simple definition, such courts encompass a loosely related group of practice areas and styles. Courts range from those addressing criminal justice issues, such as drug courts, mental health courts, reentry courts, domestic violence courts, and juvenile courts, to those less directly connected with traditional criminal justice issues, including family courts, homelessness courts, and community courts, to name just a few. Most courts, however, share some distinctive common features: channeling offenders away from traditional forms of legal regulation or punishment, relying on a more or less lengthy program of supervision and intervention that utilizes the informal or institutional authority of the judge, and a robust toleration of relapse backed by a graduated series of sanctions directed at altering the participants’ problematic conduct. These courts work to stream participants out of the traditional legal system either at the front end, prior to judgment being entered, or at the back end, as a consequence of entry of judgment, but prior to sentencing or other case disposition. Many, but not all, of these courts subscribe to the practice of either therapeutic or restorative justice (or both).

General Overviews

The major texts listed here are mostly book-length treatments and articles that covering issues common to the problem-solving courts in general by focusing on discrete court styles. Nolan 2001; Hora, et al. 1999; and Mackinem and Higgins 2008 discuss drug courts, whereas Berman, et al. 2005; Casey and Rottman 2005; Thompson 2002; and Winick 2003 are principally interested in the neighborhood or quality-of-life courts. Furthermore, the authors provide variable depth of treatment, often determined by the type of analysis. Berman, et al. 2005; Hora, et al. 1999; and Winick 2003 have all played an active role in developing various aspects of problem-solving court practice: they tend to focus on descriptions of court operation and practical impact. Articles written by law professors, social scientists, or anthropologists, such as Thompson 2002, Mackinem and Higgins 2008, and Fagan and Malkin 2003, tend to place problem-solving courts in a more theoretically oriented style of analysis, bringing to bear core legal values, or sociological or cultural critique.

  • Berman, Greg, and John Feinblatt, with Sarah Glazer. 2005. Good courts: The case for problem-solving justice. New York: New Press.

    E-mail Citation »

    Broad and accessible overview of problem-solving courts, and in particular those addressing quality-of-life issues, against the background of therapeutic jurisprudence and restorative justice. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

    Find this resource:

    • Casey, Pamela M., and David B. Rottman. 2005. Problem-solving courts: Models and trends. Justice System Journal 26.1: 35–56.

      E-mail Citation »

      Simple and effective overview of the key elements of different styles of problem-solving courts. Suitable for all levels of study

      Find this resource:

      • Fagan, Jeffrey, and Victoria Malkin. 2003. Theorizing community justice through community courts. Fordham Urban Law Review 30.3: 897–954.

        E-mail Citation »

        Seminal examination of the manner in which community courts use the problem-solving method to generate public legitimacy for low-level criminal courts. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

        Find this resource:

        • Hora, Peggy Fulton, William G. Schma, John T. A. Rosenthal. 1999. Therapeutic jurisprudence and the drug-treatment court movement: Revolutionizing the criminal justice system’s response to drug abuse and crime in America. Notre Dame Law Review 74.2: 439–538.

          E-mail Citation »

          One of the essential works on the drug court movement and the use of therapeutic justice in the courtroom. Suitable for undergraduates and graduate students.

          Find this resource:

          • Mackinem, Mitchell B., and Paul Higgins. 2008. Drug court: Constructing the moral identity of drug offenders. Springfield, IL: C. C. Thomas.

            E-mail Citation »

            A thorough and informative study of all aspects of drug-court operation, paying particular attention to the perspective of drug court participants. Suitable for undergraduates and graduate students.

            Find this resource:

            • Nolan, James L., Jr. 2001. Reinventing justice: The American drug court movement. Princeton Studies in Cultural Sociology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.

              E-mail Citation »

              The most important single work on drug courts, and a seminal study of the problem-solving movement from a sociological perspective. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

              Find this resource:

              • Thompson, Anthony C. 2002. Courting disorder: Some thoughts on community courts. Washington University Journal of Law and Policy 10:63–100.

                E-mail Citation »

                Discussing the emergence of the community court movement and the features it shares with other forms of problem-solving courts. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                Find this resource:

                • Winick, Bruce J. 2003. Therapeutic jurisprudence and problem solving courts. Fordham Urban Law Journal 30.3: 1055–1103.

                  E-mail Citation »

                  Seminal overview of problem-solving courts from the perspective of therapeutic jurisprudence, written by one of the founders of the therapeutic justice movement. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                  Find this resource:

                  Anthologies

                  The anthologies on problem-solving courts feature essays on a variety of legal, psychological, sociological, and practice issues. The essays in Lessenger and Roper 2007 and in Hennesy and Pallone 2002 discuss technical questions concerning the medical, political, legal, and administrative policy concerns of judges or legislators interested in the courts’ management style or efficacy. Both Nolan 2002 and Terry 1999 provide a collection of sociological and historical examinations of the development of problem-solving courts, as well as their legal and social impact. Winick and Wexler 2003; Stolle, et al. 2000; and Wexler and Winick 1996 republish some of the core articles on problem-solving courts, practice, and therapeutic jurisprudence, respectively.

                  • Hennessy, James, and Nathaniel J. Pallone, eds. 2002. Drug courts in operation: Current research. New York: Haworth.

                    E-mail Citation »

                    A brief, four-chapter discussion of drug courts, focusing on specific (and often neglected) client communities, including children, women, and African-American males, to determine the effects of coercion on participant motivation to end addiction. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                    Find this resource:

                    • Lessenger, James Ernest, and Glade F. Roper, eds. 2007. Drug courts: A new approach to treatment and rehabilitation. New York: Springer.

                      E-mail Citation »

                      A comprehensive but highly detailed collection of often-technical essays directed primarily at drug-court policy makers or professionals, discussing all aspects of drug-court operation and practice. Suitable for graduate students.

                      Find this resource:

                      • Nolan, James L. 2002. Drug courts in theory and in practice. Social Problems and Social Issues. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

                        E-mail Citation »

                        An in-depth, eleven-chapter collection of theoretical and empirical evaluations of drug courts in the United States and the United Kingdom, providing analyses from a variety of disciplinary perspectives, drawing out the sociological and legal implications of drug-court practice.

                        Find this resource:

                        • Stolle, Dennis P., David B. Wexler, and Bruce J. Winick, eds. 2000. Practicing therapeutic jurisprudence: Law as a helping profession. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.

                          E-mail Citation »

                          A collection of fifteen chapters and an afterword discussing the theory and practice of therapeutic jurisprudence, the animating methodology of many problem-solving courts, in civil and criminal courts and law offices. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                          Find this resource:

                          • Terry, W. Clinton III, ed. 1999. The early drug courts: Case studies in judicial innovation. Drugs, Health, and Social Policy 7. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

                            E-mail Citation »

                            A succinct review of five drug courts, each with a dedicated chapter, along with an introduction and conclusion, emphasizing judicial innovation, court organization and caseload, and initial goals and subsequent adaptations, and concluding with suggestions for court development and improvement. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                            Find this resource:

                            • Wexler, David B., and Bruce J. Winick, eds. 1996. Law in a therapeutic key: Developments in therapeutic jurisprudence. Carolina Academic Press Studies in Law and Psychology. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.

                              E-mail Citation »

                              A fifty-chapter volume emphasizing the broad scope and application of the therapeutic-justice method to a large variety of legal practice areas, and focused on individual applications of therapeutic justice rather than providing a comprehensive overview. Suitable for graduate students.

                              Find this resource:

                              • Winick, Bruce J., and David B. Wexler, eds. 2003. Judging in a therapeutic key: Therapeutic jurisprudence and the courts. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.

                                E-mail Citation »

                                This twenty-five-chapter volume provides selections from prominent articles on problem-solving courts; it is divided into two parts: the first part describing different types of problem-solving courts, including drug courts, domestic violence courts, mental health courts, and reentry courts; and the second part proposing therapeutic principles of court practice. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                Find this resource:

                                Symposia

                                These symposia, published mostly but not uniformly by law journals, discuss the policy and health implications of problem-solving courts. The Fordham Urban Law Journal 2002 symposium effectively introduces the problem-solving court movement to the legal academy, and the American Criminal Law Review 2003 consolidates the development of academic interest in the problem-solving movement. The Federal Sentencing Reporter 2007 responds to legislative initiatives in support of different styles of problem-solving court. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 2005 provides a thorough and balanced discussion of the operation and effectiveness of mental health courts. Substance Use and Misuse 2002 contains a series of articles by some of the most important authors in the field, who address, from legal, empirical, and qualitative perspectives, over a decade or more of drug-court operation, address the challenges of research and treatment practice, and examine the international experiences of drug courts in Canada, Australia, and England. The Journal of Drug Issues 2001 articles provide detailed and innovative sociological and empirical evaluations of drug-court operation and effectiveness.

                                • American Criminal Law Review. 2003. Community courts and community justice. American Criminal Law Review 40.4: 1501–1623.

                                  E-mail Citation »

                                  Ten articles in the collection feature a varied discussion of the propriety and legitimacy of problem-solving court structure and practice as well as significant challenges for the future. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                  Find this resource:

                                  • Federal Sentencing Reporter. 2007. The second chance act and the future of reentry reform. Federal Sentencing Reporter 20.2: 84–152.

                                    DOI: 10.1525/fsr.2007.20.2.75E-mail Citation »

                                    A collection of eight articles, with an introduction, preface, and appendix, prompted by the passage of the Second Chance Act funding various reentry initiatives, of the reentry movement, and reentry problem-solving courts. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students. Available online to subscribers.

                                    Find this resource:

                                    • Fordham Urban Law Journal. 2002. Problem solving courts: From adversarial litigation to innovative jurisprudence. Fordham Urban Law Journal 29.5: 1755–2132.

                                      E-mail Citation »

                                      Eleventh Annual Symposium on Contemporary Urban Challenges, March 2002. Series of fifteen speeches, conversations, and articles by practitioners and judges devoted to the practice of problem-solving justice and the development of problem-solving courts. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students. Available online to subscribers.

                                      Find this resource:

                                      • Journal of Drug Issues 2001. Drug courts as an alternative treatment modality. Journal of Drug Issues 31.1: 1–292.

                                        E-mail Citation »

                                        An eleven-article symposium on drug courts, along with an introduction and preface, with an emphasis on empirical studies evaluating drug court efficacy. Suitable for graduate students.

                                        Find this resource:

                                        • Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. 2005. A dialogue on mental health courts. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 11.4: 507–561.

                                          DOI: 10.1037/1076-8971.11.4.507E-mail Citation »

                                          Six mostly technical articles discussing the development, effectiveness, and practice issues facing mental health courts. Suitable for graduate students.

                                          Find this resource:

                                          • Substance Use and Misuse. 2002. Progress and issues in drug treatment courts. Substance Use and Misuse 37.12–13: 1441–1784.

                                            E-mail Citation »

                                            Twelve articles discussing the drug court movement from a theoretical, practical, historical, empirical, and international perspective, featuring contributions from some of the most important writers on drug courts. Suitable for graduate students.

                                            Find this resource:

                                            Reference Resources

                                            The two most detailed sets of publications can be found on the websites of the Center for Court Innovation and the National Drug Court Institute. Both of these webpages include articles that have a more sociological rather than primarily legal focus; the Center for Court Innovation publishes cutting-edge articles that cover the panoply of problem-solving courts, while the National Drug Court Institute focuses primarily on drug courts and publishes, in addition to its monograph series directed primarily at practitioners, the Drug Court Review, which contains a variety of important sociological and legal perspectives. The National Institute of Justice has a series of topical publications, including publications on drug courts with a strong sociological bent. In addition, the Justice Programs Office sponsors the national Drug Court Clearinghouse, which publishes a small number of articles and fact sheets, including guidelines for running drug courts and profiles of drug courts that explain and clarify the structure of drug courts.

                                            • Center for Court Innovation.

                                              E-mail Citation »

                                              Constantly updated series of articles by one of the premier public-policy groups working in the area of problem-solving courts. Suitable for graduate students.

                                              Find this resource:

                                              • Justice Programs Office. Drug Court Clearinghouse.

                                                E-mail Citation »

                                                Small collection of articles and fact sheets that provide important sociological background for drug court studies. Suitable for graduate students. Subset of a large website administered by the Justice Programs Office.

                                                Find this resource:

                                                • National Drug Court Institute.

                                                  E-mail Citation »

                                                  Publishes a broad range of studies and guides for drug court professionals under its monograph series, and more sociological and legal studies the Drug Court Review, which is updated annually or biennially. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                  Find this resource:

                                                  • National Institute of Justice.

                                                    E-mail Citation »

                                                    Smaller collection of sociological studies of drug courts. Suitable for graduate students.

                                                    Find this resource:

                                                    Defining Problem-Solving Courts

                                                    Any comprehensive analysis of problem-solving court practice and procedure is complicated by a lack of uniform characteristics shared by the courts, even within a given practice area. According to Greg Berman, there is no “standard” problem-solving court; there are rather an immense number of local variations on the basic model (see Berman and Gulick 2003). Miller 2004 emphasizes that different courts are established by different statutes or local rules of court within a given jurisdiction, and only confederated into a larger whole by membership in some professional group. Given the diversity of court styles, defining a problem-solving court is fraught with controversy. Berman and Feinblatt 2001 provides the most inclusive account, arguing that such courts seek to dispense substantive, rather than formal, justice — to make a difference in participants’ lives by “see[ing] the real-life consequences of courtroom decisions,” using social science data to evaluate the results of case dispositions. Nolan 2001, Nolan 2004, and Hora, et al. 1999 separately focus on the distinctive practice style of supervision, intervention, and sanction employed by particular types of solving courts. Furthermore, a variety of professional groups, such as the National Association of Drug Court Professionals Drug Court Standards Committee, have developed criteria and standards applicable in the different types of problem-solving courts: in the case of drug courts, for example, adherence to such standards is a condition of federal funding. Casey and Rottman 2005 provides a brief but comprehensive overview of the origins, practices, variety, and success of community, domestic violence, drug, and mental health courts.

                                                    • Berman, Greg, and John Feinblatt. 2001. Problem-solving courts: A brief primer. Law and Policy 23.2: 125–140.

                                                      DOI: 10.1111/1467-9930.00107E-mail Citation »

                                                      Overview of various problem-solving courts discussing their discrete histories, emergence, and practice styles. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                      Find this resource:

                                                      • Berman, Greg, and Anne Gulick. 2003. Just the (unwieldy, hard to gather, but nonetheless essential) facts, Ma’am: What we know and don’t know about problem-solving courts. Fordham Urban Law Review 30.3: 1027–1054.

                                                        E-mail Citation »

                                                        Detailed discussion of drug, community, and domestic violence courts in terms of practice styles and social impact. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students. Part of a special series, Problem-Solving Courts and Therapeutic Jurisprudence. Available online to subscribers.

                                                        Find this resource:

                                                        • Casey, Pamela M., and David B. Rottman. 2005. Problem-solving courts: Models and trends. Justice System Journal 26.1: 35–56.

                                                          E-mail Citation »

                                                          Brief introduction to four problem-solving court models (community, domestic violence, drug, and mental health courts) in terms of their origins and key elements. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                          Find this resource:

                                                          • Hora, Peggy Fulton, William G. Schma, and John T. A. Rosenthal. 1999. Therapeutic jurisprudence and the drug treatment court movement: Revolutionizing the criminal justice system’s response to drug abuse and crime in America. Notre Dame Law Review 74.2: 439–538.

                                                            E-mail Citation »

                                                            Pioneering work on drug court as a therapeutic problem-solving institution, defining and discussing the five essential components of drug courts. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                            Find this resource:

                                                            • Miller, Eric J. 2004. Embracing addiction: Drug courts and the false promise of judicial interventionism. Ohio State Law Journal 65.6: 1479–1576.

                                                              E-mail Citation »

                                                              Analysis of drug court using social norms theory to characterize and assess its claims to engage in treatment and diversion, and defining drug courts as institutions engaged in social incapacitation. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                              Find this resource:

                                                              • National Association of Drug Court Professionals, Drug Court Standards Committee. 2004. Defining drug courts: The key components. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance.

                                                                E-mail Citation »

                                                                The ten key components upon which federal funding is based, presented with commentary discussing the purpose of each component and performance benchmarks for measuring efficacy. First published in 1997. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                Find this resource:

                                                                • Nolan, James L., Jr. 2001. Reinventing justice: The American drug court movement. Princeton Studies in Cultural Sociology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.

                                                                  E-mail Citation »

                                                                  Crucial work on drug courts providing a comprehensive discussion and definition of the features of drug court practice. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                  Find this resource:

                                                                  • Nolan, James L., Jr. 2004. Redefining criminal courts: Problem-solving and the meaning of justice. American Criminal Law Review 40.4: 1541–1566.

                                                                    E-mail Citation »

                                                                    Original discussion of the transformation of traditional due-process conceptions of justice under the problem-solving courts’ treatment paradigm and the various ideological systems implicated by this movement. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                    Find this resource:

                                                                    Judges

                                                                    The relationship between judge and offender is the central focus of the drug court. Goldkamp 2000; Hora, et al. 1999; and Nolan 2001 discuss drug courts as representing a change in the orientation of court practice from an adversarial to a non-adjudicative, administrative posture more concerned with effecting treatment than with determining guilt or innocence. Boldt 2006 and Hora, et al. 1999 emphasize the role judges play in personally supervising individual offenders. Nolan 2001 and Hora, et al. 1999 describe how, over the course of his or her participation in drug court, each offender is engaged in an intense and direct interaction with the judge, who is directed toward holding an offender accountable for her actions. Bean 2002; Hora, et al. 1999; and Nolan 2001 discuss and critique the manner in which the drug court judge engages in the rehabilitative process, monitoring the participants’ progress and exercising a large degree of discretion in responding to the needs of her clients by administering a system of rewards and sanctions using a “carrot and stick” approach. A relatively recent aspect of the discussion of the judicial role, presented positively by Chase and Hora 2009 and critically by Mackenzie 2008, is the extent to which problem-solving judges are themselves made happier and gain more prestige and job satisfaction through their new judicial role.

                                                                    Transforming Behavior

                                                                    Clark 2002 identifies “[t]he basic mission of working with challenging offenders is to induce positive behavior change.” Cooper 2003 and Bozza 2007 each describe ways in which drug court procedure promotes character reformation or behavior modification through a range of positive and negative sanctions. Cooper 2003 demonstrates that rewards and sanctions are part and parcel of a training process in which the offender is weaned off of his or her antisocial behavior. National Association of Drug Court Professionals, Drug Court Standards Committee 2004 and Nolan 2001 each describes ways in which rewarding positive behavior takes a variety of expressive forms: from motivational talks and support and applause from drug court peers to graduation ceremonies for the participants who have completed the court’s rehabilitation process. Clark 2002, Cooper 2003, and Bozza 2007 discuss the manner in which sanctions are included as part of the therapeutic process and range from the quite traditional (verbal warnings, a return to a prior stage of the process, incarceration) to the creative, culminating in termination from participation in the program that results in returning the offender to the court system or imprisonment. The Bureau of Justice Assistance has published the standards of the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, which contemplate a range of more expressive sanctions, including confinement in the jury box. Harrell and Roman 2001 provide detailed statistical data to suggest that a regime of graduated sanctions can be successful in reducing drug use and crime. Griffin, et al. 2002 reports that mental health courts use jail time as a sanction more sparingly than do drug courts.

                                                                    • Bozza, John A. 2007. Benevolent behavior modification: Understanding the nature and limitations of problem-solving courts. Widener Law Journal 17.1: 97–144.

                                                                      E-mail Citation »

                                                                      Discussion of the central role behavioral contracting and sanctions play in producing behavior modification in drug and mental health court, and an evaluation of their efficacy and propriety.

                                                                      Find this resource:

                                                                      • Clark, Michael D. 2002. Change-focused drug courts: Examining the critical ingredients of positive behavior change. National Drug Court Institute Review 3.2: 35–87.

                                                                        E-mail Citation »

                                                                        Evaluation of current literature discussing the effectiveness of therapeutic approaches to behavior modification in drug courts and identification of four common factors likely to improve drug court efficacy. Suitable for graduate students.

                                                                        Find this resource:

                                                                        • Cooper, Stephen C. 2003. The carrot and the stick: How effective sanctions and incentives succeed in overcoming addiction. Michigan Bar Journal 82:20–24.

                                                                          E-mail Citation »

                                                                          A powerful statement by a drug court judge of the therapeutic justification for behavior modification through a system of sanctions and rewards. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                          Find this resource:

                                                                          • Griffin, Patricia A., Henry J. Steadman, and John Petrila. 2002. The use of criminal charges and sanctions in mental health courts. Psychiatric Services 53.10: 1285–1289.

                                                                            DOI: 10.1176/appi.ps.53.10.1285E-mail Citation »

                                                                            Study describing the wide variety of criminal sanctions used in mental health courts to enforce community treatment, contrasting the relatively rare mental health use of jail with the greater use of this sanction in drug courts. Suitable for graduate students.

                                                                            Find this resource:

                                                                            • Harrell, Adele, and John Roman. 2001. Reducing drug use and crime among offenders: The impact of graduated sanctions. Journal of Drug Issues 31.1: 207–232.

                                                                              E-mail Citation »

                                                                              Detailed statistical evaluation of the impact of graduates sanctions in two drug-court jurisdictions, concluding that such sanctions are effective in reducing recidivism. Suitable for graduate students.

                                                                              Find this resource:

                                                                              • National Association of Drug Court Professionals, Drug Court Standards Committee. 2004. Defining drug courts: The key components. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance.

                                                                                E-mail Citation »

                                                                                Components 4–6 describe the process of behavior modification, with component six discussing the system of rewards and punishments used as a key feature of every drug court. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students. First published in 1997.

                                                                                Find this resource:

                                                                                • Nolan, James L., Jr. 2001. Reinventing justice: The American drug court movement. Princeton Studies in Cultural Sociology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.

                                                                                  E-mail Citation »

                                                                                  Seminal study of judicial attitudes to treatment and discipline, illuminating and critiquing the links between the two. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                  Find this resource:

                                                                                  Public Defenders

                                                                                  According to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the role of defense counsel in problem-solving courts is among the most dramatically transformed. Traditionally, defense counsel serves as a zealous and adversarial advocate, acting at the behest of the client to protect certain fundamental rights. Wexler 2005 and Daicoff 2006, both supporters of therapeutic justice, argue that in a problem-solving court, defense counsel should not only act as a lawyer to protect the participant’s rights but also as a member of the treatment team and encourage full participation in the therapeutic program. Quinn 2007, Bowers 2008, Meekins 2006, and Pinard 2004 respond that the traditional role of defense counsel already encompasses this sort of holistic approach, and that the therapeutic orientation in fact requires counsel to modify or mute her traditional role to permit the judge to assume counsel’s role. Furthermore, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers 2009 provides detailed examples of problems in criminal defense representation in drug courts. Simon 2003, while accepting these criticisms, argues that these traditional liberal responses miss new opportunities presented by problem-solving courts for defense counsel to serve their clients in new and more powerful ways.

                                                                                  • Bowers, Josh. 2008. Contraindicated drug courts. UCLA Law Review 55.4: 783–836.

                                                                                    E-mail Citation »

                                                                                    Detailed discussion of drug court practice, concluding that the central limit on the defense counsel’s role is an inability to accurately predict the impact of drug court on addicted participants. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                    Find this resource:

                                                                                    • Daicoff, Susan. 2006. Law as a healing profession: The “comprehensive law movement.” Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal 6.1: 1–62.

                                                                                      E-mail Citation »

                                                                                      Attributes the simultaneous emergence of problem-solving courts, therapeutic jurisprudence, and restorative justice to a recent emphasis on the psychology and emotional well-being of participants in the criminal justice process. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                      Find this resource:

                                                                                      • Meekins, Tamar M., 2006. “Specialized justice”: The over-emergence of specialty courts and the threat of a new criminal defense paradigm. Suffolk University Law Review 40.1: 1–56.

                                                                                        E-mail Citation »

                                                                                        Thorough analysis of the conflicts between the criminal-defense counsel’s duty of zealous advocacy and the role mandated for defense counsel as a member of the problem-solving court’s treatment team, and the implications for effective client representation. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                        Find this resource:

                                                                                        • National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. 2009. America’s problem-solving courts: The criminal costs of treatment and the case for reform. Washington, DC: National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

                                                                                          E-mail Citation »

                                                                                          Extremely thorough discussion of issues facing criminal defense attorneys in drug court practice, raising ethical issues surrounding the ability of public defenders to participate in court procedure and otherwise adequately represent their clients. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                          Find this resource:

                                                                                          • Pinard, Michael. 2004. Broadening the holistic mindset: Incorporating collateral consequences and reentry into criminal defense lawyering. Fordham Urban Law Journal 31.4: 1067–1096.

                                                                                            E-mail Citation »

                                                                                            Emphasizes an institutional form of holistic representation addressing the formal legal barriers presented by the noncriminal, collateral consequences of criminal conviction, and featuring a discussion of prisoner reentry. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                            Find this resource:

                                                                                            • Quinn, Mae C. 2007. An RSVP to Professor Wexler’s warm therapeutic jurisprudence invitation to the criminal defense bar: Unable to join you, already (somewhat similarly) engaged. Boston College Law Review 48.3: 539–596.

                                                                                              E-mail Citation »

                                                                                              Rejects the therapeutic justice model of rehabilitative defense practice as either already part of professional ethics or as overly paternalistic and antagonistic to the defendant’s interests. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                              Find this resource:

                                                                                              • Simon, William H. 2003. Criminal defenders and community justice: The drug court example. American Criminal Law Review 40:1595–1608.

                                                                                                E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                Identifies criminal defense practice as stuck in an outmoded focus on rights, and advocating its replacement with a collaborative, transactional approach to lawyering. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students. Available online to subscribers.

                                                                                                Find this resource:

                                                                                                • Wexler, David B. 2005. Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Rehabilitative Role of the Criminal Defense Lawyer. St. Thomas Law Review 17.3: 743–774.

                                                                                                  E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                  Argues that therapeutic jurisprudence could play a significant role in criminal defense practice, and particularly at all stages of the process in problem-solving courts. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                  Find this resource:

                                                                                                  History

                                                                                                  Problem-solving courts fall into four general categories: drug courts, community courts, domestic violence courts, and family courts, each with its own separate history. The original problem-solving courts, drug courts, first emerged in Miami in 1989. Hora, et al. 1999 and Nolan 2001 provide different perspectives on the manner in which a growing cadre of judges popularized treatment as an alternative to traditional case-processing methods. Boldt 1998 juxtaposes the emergence of problem-solving courts with the rise and fall of the rehabilitative ideal. Inciardi, et al. 1996 places drug courts against a background of prior attempts at rehabilitation and diversion, emphasizing the manner in which these courts developed in response to the increased emphasis on drug prosecution, the rejection of rehabilitation, and emergence of incapacitation as central aspects of the “war on drugs.” Quinn 2000 identifies the issues that led to the development of drug courts and their initial development and spread throughout the country, and assesses whether the drug court style of practice is compatible with the public defenders’ duties to protect and represent their clients. Berman, et al. 2005 discusses the distinctive introduction of community or neighborhood courts, which appeared in New York in the mid-1990s in response to a more diffuse set of “quality of life” issues, initially arising from public order issues and urban blight and most prominently typified by the “Broken Windows” movement in policing. Mirchandani 2006 argues that domestic violence courts arose out of a concern, prompted by the feminist movement, to engage in an integrated response to the civil and criminal aspects of abuse. Juvenile courts existed long before drug courts; nonetheless, the new juvenile court movement has been reinvigorated by the problem-solving approach.

                                                                                                  • Berman, Greg, and John Feinblatt, with Sarah Glazer. 2005. Good courts: The case for problem-solving justice. New York: New Press.

                                                                                                    E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                    A broad, entry-level discussion of the development and future of different types of problem-solving court. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                    Find this resource:

                                                                                                    • Boldt, Richard. 1998. Rehabilitative punishment and the drug treatment court movement. Washington University Law Quarterly 76.4: 1205–1306.

                                                                                                      E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                      An analysis of the import of the modern problem-solving court movement for legal practice and particularly criminal defense against the backdrop of a more traditional rehabilitative model, and in particular, juvenile justice. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                      Find this resource:

                                                                                                      • Hora, Peggy Fulton, William G. Schma, and John T. A. Rosenthal. 1999. Therapeutic jurisprudence and the drug treatment court movement: Revolutionizing the criminal justice system’s response to drug abuse and crime in America. Notre Dame Law Review 74.2: 439–538.

                                                                                                        E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                        An early history of the drug court movement written by three of the original drug court judges. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                        Find this resource:

                                                                                                        • Inciardi, James A., Duane C. McBride, and James E. Rivers. 1996. Drug control and the courts. Drugs, Health, and Social Policy series 3. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

                                                                                                          E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                          Brief, four-chapter volume discussing the relation between criminal justice and drug policy and research, legal coercion and treatment, major drug-diversion programs prior to problem-solving courts, and the emergence of drug courts. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                          Find this resource:

                                                                                                          • Mirchandani, Rekha. 2006. “Hitting is not manly”: Domestic violence court and the re-imagination of the patriarchal state. Gender and Society 20.6: 781–804.

                                                                                                            DOI: 10.1177/0891243206292002E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                            Innovative study describing the manner in which feminist theory, and in particular the battered women’s movement, transformed judicial responses to domestic violence by prompting the creation of domestic violence courts. Suitable for graduate students.

                                                                                                            Find this resource:

                                                                                                            • Nolan, James L., Jr. 2001. Reinventing justice: The American drug court movement. Princeton Studies in Cultural Sociology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.

                                                                                                              E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                              The essential work on the early development of drug courts that would make an excellent textbook for a drug courts course. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                              Find this resource:

                                                                                                              • Quinn, Mae C. 2000. Whose team am I on anyway? Musings of a public defender about drug treatment court practice. New York University Review of Law and Social Change 26.1–2: 37–76.

                                                                                                                E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                Describes the history of drug policy in the United States, the evolution of the first drug courts in Miami, and the role of defense counsel in drug court as the basis for a critique of drug courts’ continued legitimacy. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                                Find this resource:

                                                                                                                Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Restorative Justice

                                                                                                                The introduction to the therapeutic jurisprudence movement of Winick 2003, and the largely sympathetic critique of it by Slobogin 1995, each emphasizes the social and psychological impact of legal relationships on the various participants in the legal process and promotes social adjustment through the internalization of socially adaptive norms of conduct. Wexler 1999 and Hora, et al. 1999 argue that, instead studying or transforming legal doctrine, therapeutic jurisprudence seeks to reform legal practice using the clinical behavioral sciences, and recommends using social science methods to study the impact of legal practices on participants’ psychological, physical, and social well-being. Both King 2008 and Berman, et al. 2005 identify commonalities as well as differences between therapeutic justice ad restorative justice. Both King 2008 and Fulkerson 2009 show these commonalities by emphasizing the wide range of practices covered by restorative justice directed towards the well-being of victims, offenders and communities. While O’Hear 2009 points out that restorative justice is growing in popularity in drug and mental health courts, Berman, et al. 2005 believes that restorative justice’s emphasis on the community’s sense of wholeness explains its popularity in community or neighborhood courts.

                                                                                                                • Berman, Greg, and John Feinblatt, with Sarah Glazer. 2005. Good courts: The case for problem-solving justice. New York: New Press.

                                                                                                                  E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                  A comprehensive introduction to the central therapeutic and restorative-justice issues facing problem-solving courts by two of the central figures in problem-solving justice. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                                  Find this resource:

                                                                                                                  • Fulkerson, Andrew. 2009. The drug treatment court as a form of restorative justice. Contemporary Justice Review 12.3: 253–267.

                                                                                                                    DOI: 10.1080/10282580903105772E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                    A brief introduction to therapeutic jurisprudence and restorative justice in the context of both drug court practice and theories of punishment. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                                    Find this resource:

                                                                                                                    • Hora, Peggy Fulton, William G. Schma, and John T. A. Rosenthal. 1999. Therapeutic jurisprudence and the drug treatment court movement: Revolutionizing the criminal justice system’s response to drug abuse and crime in America. Notre Dame Law Review 74.2: 439–538.

                                                                                                                      E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                      Groundbreaking article written by drug court judges justifying therapeutic jurisprudence as the basis for drug court practice. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                                      Find this resource:

                                                                                                                      • King, Michael S. 2008. Restorative justice, therapeutic jurisprudence, and the rise of emotionally intelligent justice. Melbourne University Law Review 32.3 1096–1126.

                                                                                                                        E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                        Major article, written by an Australian problem-solving court judge, providing a detailed and thoughtful comparison of the therapeutic and problem-solving approaches. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                                        Find this resource:

                                                                                                                        • O’Hear, Michael M. 2009. Rethinking drug courts: Restorative justice as a response to racial injustice. Stanford Law and Policy Review 20.2: 463–500.

                                                                                                                          E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                          Article arguing for the importance of a restorative justice methodology and practice as an alternative to the court-oriented and treatment-focused approach of many drug courts. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                                          Find this resource:

                                                                                                                          • Slobogin, Christopher. 1995. Therapeutic jurisprudence: Five dilemmas to ponder. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 1.1: 193–219.

                                                                                                                            DOI: 10.1037/1076-8971.1.1.193E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                            Brief article distinguishing therapeutic jurisprudence from comparable legal theories promoting well-being, in part by its emphasis on empirical research, and considering its interaction with competing constitutional or rights-based modalities. Suitable for graduate and undergraduate students. Also excerpted in Wexler and Winick 1996 (cited under Anthologies). Available online to subscribers.

                                                                                                                            Find this resource:

                                                                                                                            • Wexler, David B. 1999. The development of therapeutic jurisprudence: From theory to practice. Revista Juridica Universidad de Puerto Rico 68: 691–705.

                                                                                                                              E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                              Article discussing the history of the development of therapeutic jurisprudence as a style of scholarship and practice, and its adoption by, among others, the early, leading judges of the drug court movement. Available online to subscribers.

                                                                                                                              Find this resource:

                                                                                                                              • Winick, Bruce J. 2003. Therapeutic jurisprudence and problem solving courts. Fordham Urban Law Review 30.3: 1055–1104.

                                                                                                                                E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                Essential introduction by one of the founders of the therapeutic jurisprudence movement, justifying therapeutic jurisprudence as the theoretical foundation for problem-solving courts. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                                                Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                Practice Styles and Areas of Specialization

                                                                                                                                Thompson 2002 argues that problem-solving courts often specialize in treating particular types of offense or offender. While these courts may be more or less closely related by practice style, Nolan 2003 and Dorf and Fagan 2003 independently argue that each practice area presents different challenges and opportunities for intervention. For example, Nolan 2003 points out that some courts are principally concerned with offenders, whereas others include the victim of crime and the community more directly in the problem-solving process. Of the various courts studied, by far the most well-documented are drug courts: it would, however, be a mistake to assume that all problem-solving courts replicate the drug court model.

                                                                                                                                • Dorf, Michael C., and Jeffrey A. Fagan. 2003. Problem-solving courts: From innovation to institutionalization. American Criminal Law Review 40.4: 1501–1512.

                                                                                                                                  E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                  Insightful overview of distinctions between different types of problem-solving court styles and origins, as well as a useful summary of different theoretical approaches to problem-solving courts. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                                                  Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                  • Nolan, James L. 2003. Redefining criminal courts: Problem-solving and the meaning of justice. American Criminal Law Review 40.4: 1541–1566.

                                                                                                                                    E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                    Essential discussion of different practice styles across problem-solving courts, in particular drug courts, and the consequences of moving away from a traditional model of due process to an emphasis on therapeutic or restorative justice. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                                                    Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                    • Thompson, Anthony C. 2002. Courting disorder: Some thoughts on community courts. Washington University Journal of Law and Policy 10:63–100.

                                                                                                                                      E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                      Significant article questioning appropriateness of judicial branch taking over the role previously performed by probation or treatment experts. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students. Available online to subscribers.

                                                                                                                                      Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                      Drug Courts

                                                                                                                                      Drug courts exist to channel offenders into treatment at a variety of different stages of the criminal justice process. Hora, et al. 1999; Hora and Stalcup 2007–2008; and Nolan 2001 describe the drug court as requiring a team organization to replace the adversarial, adjudicative orientation of traditional courts. In US Congress Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources 2001, testimony before the US Congress describes the treatment team as adopting an expressly therapeutic approach to drug addiction, in which the judge, prosecutor, and defender become partners collaborating in an effort to rehabilitate the participant or restore her to the community. Hora, et al. 1999 argues that a central goal of drug court procedure is and ought to be to promote the participants’ character reformation or behavior modification using the court’s sanctioning power. Hora, et al. 1999; McColl 1996; Nolan 2001; and Miller 2004 each discuss the manner in which courts pursue this goal through a treatment model that reconfigures the judicial role from the determination of guilt to leading a treatment team in which prosecutor, defense counsel, and other court members occupy subordinate roles supportive of this mission. Hora and Stalcup 2007–2008 and Miller 2004 each identify the disease model of addiction as a central element in the drug court’s treatment philosophy, differing over its consequences for an appropriate model of drug treatment. Hora, et al. 1999 and Nolan 2001 each describes a central feature of the court’s emphasis on the disease model is its increased toleration of relapse, and the use of a graduated set of sanctions to induce conforming behavior. Longshore 2001 identifies five core dimensions of drug court structure and process to be used in evaluating the effectiveness of individual drug courts on therapeutic outcomes.

                                                                                                                                      Mental Health Courts

                                                                                                                                      Stefan and Winick 2005 describes mental health courts as an offshoot of drug courts, sharing the same therapeutic, team-oriented approach to participants charged with a criminal offense. Miller and Perelman 2009 argues that, instead of targeting addiction, mental health courts specifically address the needs of mentally ill offenders and are designed to motivate the participant to accept the recommended treatment. While Talesh 2007–2008 argues that the courts operate as a means to manage the risk that such participants pose to the community, Redlich, et al. 2005 describes the courts as operating to channel mentally ill offenders away from incarceration and into community treatment. Although the courts operate to fill a need caused by “systemic failures in public mental health and the criminal justice system,” Seltzer 2005 argues that mental health courts undermine the will to challenge our current criminalization of mental health. Goldkamp and Irons-Guynn 2000 discusses the widely varying styles of court and models of treatment. As Redlich, et al. 2005 points out, different courts engage in more frequent or more sparse monitoring of clients, and second-generation courts accept more felons than traditionally has been the case. Redlich, et al. 2006 considers that frequency of monitoring and number of felons are significant predictors of the use of incarcerative sanctions. Winick and Stefan 2005 contains a series of articles from different points of view discussing different aspects of the operation and effectiveness of mental health courts, as well as policy issues raised by their distinctive treatment practice.

                                                                                                                                      • Goldkamp, John S., and Cheryl Irons-Guynn. 2000. Emerging judicial strategies for the mentally ill in the criminal caseload: Mental health courts in Fort Lauderdale, Seattle, San Bernardino, and Anchorage. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance.

                                                                                                                                        E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                        Article pinpoints the social and political forces, including deinstitutionalization, drug use, homelessness, and jail overcrowding, that produced the mental health court as a community justice response, and identifying common characteristics and challenges. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                                                        Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                        • Miller, Sarah L., and Abigayl M. Perelman. 2009. Mental health courts: An overview and redefinition of tasks and goals. Law and Psychology Review 33.1: 113–124.

                                                                                                                                          E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                          Defines the core features of mental health courts and discusses their efficacy, as well as reviewing critiques of mental health courts and characterizing them as an improvement over, if not an answer to, the current treatment of the mentally ill in the criminal justice system. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                                                          Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                          • Redlich, A. D., H. J. Steadman, J. Monahan, J. Petrila, and P. Griffin. 2005. The second generation of mental health courts. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 11.4: 527–538.

                                                                                                                                            DOI: 10.1037/1076-8971.11.4.527E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                            Comparison among fifteen mental health courts identifying four characteristics distinguishing first- and second-generation courts, including acceptance of felony defendants; type of case disposition; willingness to use jail as a sanction; and style of supervision. Suitable for graduate students.

                                                                                                                                            Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                            • Redlich, A. D., H. J. Steadman, P. C. Robbins, J. Monahan, and J. Petrila. 2006. Patterns of practice in mental health courts: A national survey. Law and Human Behavior 30:347–362.

                                                                                                                                              DOI: 10.1007/s 10979-006-9036-xE-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                              Article links the use of jail as a sanction in mental health courts to increased judicial supervision and number of felons (as opposed to misdemeanants) in the court. Suitable for graduate students. Available online to subscribers.

                                                                                                                                              Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                              • Seltzer, Tammy. 2005. Mental health courts: A misguided attempt to address the criminal justice system’s unfair treatment of people with mental illnesses. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 11.4: 570–586.

                                                                                                                                                DOI: 10.1037/1076-8971.11.4.570E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                Argues that the proliferation of mental health courts are an institutionally conservative response to systemic failures in public mental health and the criminal justice system, whose success makes institutional change more difficult. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students. Available online to subscribers.

                                                                                                                                                Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                • Stefan, Susan, and Bruce J. Winick. 2005. A dialogue on mental health courts. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 11.4: 507–526.

                                                                                                                                                  DOI: 10.1037/1076-8971.11.4.507E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                  Foreword defines mental health courts, describes the social and political factors producing the specialized problem-solving response, and debates the value of mental health courts. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                                                                  Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                  • Talesh, Shauhin. 2007–2008. Mental health court judges as dynamic risk managers: A new conceptualization of the role of judges. DePaul Law Review 57.1: 93–132.

                                                                                                                                                    E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                    Article argues that mental health court judges are activist risk managers, required to determine an offender’s danger of harm to himself and the public, match offenders to appropriate treatment plans, and monitor their progress. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                                                                    Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                    • Winick, Bruce J., and Susan Stefan, eds. 2005. Special Issue: Mental Health Courts. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 11.4.

                                                                                                                                                      E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                      An excellent series of articles providing balanced, well-researched, and probing discussions of the central issues facing mental health courts. Suitable for graduate students.

                                                                                                                                                      Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                      Reentry Courts

                                                                                                                                                      Prisoner reentry into the community has become a national concern. Travis 2007 defines reentry courts as modeled on the drug court, and designed to supervise a former felon’s return to the community after release from prison. Thompson 2004 identifies the specific goal of such courts—to focus on the specific employment, treatment, housing, family, and supervision needs of individual ex-prisoners. As Pinard and Thompson 2006 and Pinard 2006 point out, the problem of reentry is complicated by the collateral consequences of incarceration, which prevent ex-offenders from accessing a variety of community and social services. Thompson 2004 discerns four core components of reentry courts: a transition plan, supportive services, regular appearances; and accountability to victims or communities. While Travis 2007 describes the reentry court movement as still in its infancy, Wilkinson, et al. 2004 highlights the variety of pilot sites set up across the country. These courts emphasize a mix of both community-centered restorative justice for the drug court’s expressly therapeutic justice orientation, adding a restorative justice component to the therapeutic control and treatment approaches to encourage ex-inmates willingly to take responsibility for their social reintegration. Finally, Miller 2007 worries about the restrictive focus of reentry courts on individual responsibility, instead discussing environmental factors such as health, employment, and housing as major, socially created impediments to successful reentry.

                                                                                                                                                      • Miller, Eric J. 2007. The therapeutic effects of managerial reentry courts. Federal Sentencing Reporter 20.2: 127–135.

                                                                                                                                                        DOI: 10.1525/fsr.2007.20.2.127E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                        Article discusses the problem-solving orientation of judges in reentry courts as based on informal or collateral authority derived from the way in which institutional repeat players participate, and critiques the reentry model as overly concerned with individual rather than social responsibility for the various impediments to reintegrating offenders into fragile communities. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                                                                        Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                        • Pinard, Michael. 2006. An integrated perspective on the collateral consequences of criminal convictions and reentry issues faced by formerly incarcerated individuals. Boston University Law Review 86.3: 623–690.

                                                                                                                                                          E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                          Article links the collateral consequences and reentry aspects of criminal convictions as integrated aspects of criminal policy, and describes the impact of such an approach on practice-based strategies, including the problem-solving approach advocated by proponents of reentry courts. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                                                                          Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                          • Pinard, Michael, and Anthony C. Thompson. 2006. Offender reentry and the collateral consequences of criminal convictions: An introduction. New York University Review of Law and Social Change 30.4: 585–620.

                                                                                                                                                            E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                            Describes the reentry court experiment as providing a unitary body to facilitate an individual’s reentry while questioning the propriety of a highly discretionary, court- or judge-centered methodology to replace the traditional parole system. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                                                                            Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                            • Thompson, Anthony C. 2004. Navigating the hidden obstacles to ex-offender reentry. Boston College Law Review 45.2: 255–306.

                                                                                                                                                              E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                              Describes reentry courts as state responses to prisoner release into overburdened communities and critiques the ability of such courts to effectuate ex-offender transition, support, and supervision, while also proposing alternative strategies to manage ex-offender reentry. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                                                                              Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                              • Travis, Jeremy 2007. Reflections on the reentry movement. Federal Sentencing Reporter 20.2: 84–87.

                                                                                                                                                                DOI: 10.1525/fsr.2007.20.2.84E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                Brief article by one of the founders of the reentry movement, identifying reentry courts as promoting a bold, new community-based approach to managing reentry that reaches across agency lines. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                                                                                Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                • Wilkinson, Reginald A., Gregory A. Bucholtz, and Gregory M. Siegfried. 2004. Prison reform through offender reentry: A partnership between courts and corrections. Pace Law Review 24.2: 609–630.

                                                                                                                                                                  E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                  Article promotes reentry courts as an alternative to traditional modes of court organization, as a partnership between local judiciaries and corrections services in which judges use an integrated-team orientation to actively facilitate offender reintegration through restorative justice. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                                                                                  Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                  Domestic Violence Courts

                                                                                                                                                                  Shaffer 2004 identifies specialized domestic-violence courts as addressing the often-complex relationship between offender and victim to control the risk of continuing, escalating violence. Mirchandani 2005 believes domestic violence courts represent the triumph of feminist reform efforts, and Quinn 2008 suggests they are a similar to legal realist attempts to engage in court reform. Winick 2000 discusses the manner in which these courts recognize the complex causes and solutions to domestic violence—such courts incorporate a comprehensive community response to domestic violence, including referral to counseling, intervention, and substance abuse treatment for victims, batterers, and their families. Kaye and Knipps 2000 demonstrates that the court’s integrated process unifies all the diverse civil and criminal aspects of domestic violence cases which, Shaffer 2004 worries, are otherwise fragmented among a variety of social services, including law-enforcement, criminal defense, victims’ advocates, probation and corrections services, and civil and criminal courts.

                                                                                                                                                                  • Kaye, Judith S., and Susan K. Knipps. 2000. Judicial responses to domestic violence: The case for a problem solving approach. Western State University Law Review 27:1–14.

                                                                                                                                                                    E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                    Brief introduction to problem solving as an approach to domestic violence, analyzing its emergence in New York courts and suggesting its advantages over more traditional court methodologies. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students. Available online to subscribers.

                                                                                                                                                                    Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                    • Mirchandani, Rekha. 2005. What’s so special about specialized courts: The state and social change in Salt Lake City’s domestic violence court. Law and Society Review 39.2: 379–417.

                                                                                                                                                                      DOI: 10.1111/j.0023-9216.2005.00086.xE-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                      Article replacing the dominant analysis of problem-solving courts in terms of social control, with an analysis of domestic violence courts as a form of social movement arising out of feminist concerns with domestic violence. Suitable for graduate students.

                                                                                                                                                                      Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                      • Quinn, Mae C. 2008. Anna Moscowitz Kross and the home term part: A second look at the nation’s first criminal domestic violence court. Akron Law Review 41.3 733–762.

                                                                                                                                                                        E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                        Historical comparison of the modern emergence of domestic violence courts with a similar experiment in specialized courts dedicated to domestic violence prosecutions undertaken fifty years ago in New York. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                                                                                        Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                        • Shaffer, Catherine. 2004. Therapeutic domestic violence courts: An efficient approach to adjudication. Seattle University Law Review 27.4: 981–998.

                                                                                                                                                                          E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                          Article provides a historical introduction into criminal justice responses to domestic violence, and the emergence and methodology of problem-solving approaches to domestic violence. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                                                                                          Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                          • Winick, Bruce J. 2000. Applying the law therapeutically in domestic violence cases. University of Missouri–Kansas City Law Review 69.1: 33–92.

                                                                                                                                                                            DOI: 10.1016/S0962-18499680010-2E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                            Article argues, from a therapeutic jurisprudence perspective, that criminal justice officials processing domestic violence cases should utilize empirical risk assessment tools and consider the psychological or emotional impact of roles when making decisions at all stages of the criminal justice process. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students. Available online to subscribers.

                                                                                                                                                                            Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                            Family Courts

                                                                                                                                                                            Community and family courts share an emphasis on resolving a broad range of problems through an integrated, holistic approach to processing cases within the judicial system. Babb 1998 describes the family court system as one that confronts issues arising out of divorce, domestic violence, or child neglect, often through multiple courts and in a fragmented manner. Babb and Moran 1999 details how unified family courts offer a single, specialized judge and social services team in a centralized court to address the issues of client children who may otherwise have their case dispersed among the delinquency, dependency, divorce, and even criminal courts. Centralization permits the judge to coordinate agencies and access all the available services, using methods of problem solving and alternative dispute resolution. Boldt and Singer 2006 regards family courts as an offshoot of the juvenile court movement and various initiatives promoted by the American Bar Association.

                                                                                                                                                                            • Babb, Barbara A. 1998. Fashioning an interdisciplinary framework for court reform in family law: A blueprint to construct a unified family court. Southern California Law Review 71.3: 469–546.

                                                                                                                                                                              DOI: 10.1016/S0962-18499680010-2E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                              Article provides history of family court, details the American Bar Association’s calls for the creation of specialized family courts, and proposes a therapeutic, problem-solving model for unified family courts. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                                                                                              Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                              • Babb, Barbara A., and Judith D. Moran. 1999. Substance abuse, families, and unified family courts: The creation of a caring justice system. Journal of Health Care Law and Policy 3:1–9.

                                                                                                                                                                                E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                Discusses unified family courts’ use of therapeutic jurisprudence to examine the appropriate ways in which to intervene in the lives of families. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                                                                                                Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                • Boldt, Richard, and Jana Singer. 2006. Juristocracy in the trenches: Problem-solving judges and therapeutic jurisprudence in drug treatment courts and unified family courts. Maryland Law Review 65.1: 82–99.

                                                                                                                                                                                  E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                  A comparison of unified family court and drug court methodology in the context of the political, social, and institutional background generating reorganization of courts around the problem-solving model. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                                                                                                  Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                  Community Courts

                                                                                                                                                                                  Established as part of the community justice movement, Community courts seek to engage with neighborhood stakeholders to solve a variety of issues, ranging from domestic violence to mental health, by providing participants with access to a range of social services, including job training and health care. Fagan and Malkin 2003 describes how community courts, and in particular the Red Hook community court in Brooklyn, emerge out of the intersection of “social, spacial, and political” dynamics of “social control in areas undergoing rapid social change.” Thompson 2001 describes the animating justification of community courts as including local residents most often affected by the sentencing process in the resolution of court cases. Berman, et al. 2005 suggests that these communities are least likely to be included in criminal justice adjudication: community courts promote public participation in court decision-making through advisory boards and impact panels, and town hall meetings. Malkin 2003 analyzes the manner in which community courts deal with a range of neighborhood quality-of-life issues that would otherwise escape formal resolution within the criminal justice system. Both Thompson 2001 and Dalrymple 1996 describe community courts as concerned to address the sort of street-level disorder that threatens the neighborhood’s safety and economic viability. Such courts often represent a public-private partnership between local businesses, the community, and the courts.

                                                                                                                                                                                  • Berman, Greg, and John Feinblatt, with Sarah Glazer. 2005. Good courts: The case for problem-solving justice. New York: New Press.

                                                                                                                                                                                    E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                    Two of the central innovators in the community-court movement discuss the success and challenges facing the problem-solving court movement at that level. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                                                                                                    Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                    • Dalrymple, Christopher. 1996. The Midtown Community Court experiment: A progress report. New York: Midtown Community Court.

                                                                                                                                                                                      E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                      Short, documentary video discussing the creation and operation of a Manhattan community court, featuring interviews with the members of the treatment team, offenders, and stakeholders in and private sponsors of the court, including then-Mayor Guiliani and the Times Square Business Improvement district.

                                                                                                                                                                                      Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                      • Fagan, Jeffrey, and Victoria Malkin. 2003. Theorizing community justice through community courts. Fordham Urban Law Review 30.3: 897–954.

                                                                                                                                                                                        E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                        An innovative article that analyzes community court practice as a means of understanding the structure and process of community justice at the level of neighborhood, city, and judicial, social, spatial, and political dynamics, emphasizing the need for sociological theory to explain and predict the broader applicability of community justice approaches. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                                                                                                        Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                        • Malkin, Victoria. 2003. Community courts and the process of accountability: Consensus and conflict at the Red Hook Community Justice Center. American Criminal Law Review 40.4: 1573–1594.

                                                                                                                                                                                          E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                          Article, based on ethnographic fieldwork, examines a community court’s attempts to generate local, community participation within the court system, and the relative power of community and judge in shaping the court’s decision-making process. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students. Available online to subscribers.

                                                                                                                                                                                          Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                          • Thompson, Anthony C. 2001. Courting disorder: Some thoughts on community courts. Washington University Journal of Law and Policy 10:63–100.

                                                                                                                                                                                            E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                            Comprehensive introduction to history and operation of community courts. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                                                                                                            Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                            Practical Efficacy

                                                                                                                                                                                            The two most reliable studies, Belenko 1998 and Belenko 2001, discuss various attempts to measure the success of problem-solving courts using recidivism rates or (in the case of drug courts) abstinence and reduced drug use as evidence of success. While Jensen and Mosher 2006 concludes that many courts can point to a reduced recidivism rate, comprehensive evaluation of the problem-solving court model is complicated by a variety of factors, including the degree of local variation between different drug court models and the criteria for success employed by the various evaluations. Accordingly, while local studies may provide useful, Belenko 1998 and Belenko 2001 argue that problems exist in generalizing global conclusions from the available data. Furthermore, Goldkamp, et al. 2001 proposes that it is essential to settle on some uniform criterion for success as well as a more detailed evaluation of the manner in which the various elements of drug court practice contribute to that success. Wolff and Pogorzelski 2005 presents the belief that the answers to these questions are of vital significance, especially given the now-current view that, if rehabilitation is to remain a goal of the criminal justice system, it must actually and demonstrably work. Both Boothroyd, et al. 2005 and Wolff and Pogorzelski 2005 discuss difficulties in measuring the efficacy of mental health court success.

                                                                                                                                                                                            • Belenko, Steven. 1998. Research on drug courts: A critical review. National Drug Court Institute Review 1.1:10–116.

                                                                                                                                                                                              E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                              Seminal study of drug court efficacy, demonstrates that so long as participants are in drug treatment programs, drug use and recidivism will be low, but that it is difficult to draw long-term conclusions and to generate reliable, consistent, and uniform data across drug courts. Suitable for graduate students.

                                                                                                                                                                                              Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                              • Belenko, Steven. 2001. Research on drug courts: A critical review—2001 update. New York: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University.

                                                                                                                                                                                                E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                                Follow-up to the 1998 study reviewing 37 published and unpublished evaluations of drug courts finds success in reduced use and recidivism during participation in the program, finding some lower recidivism after participation in the few studies that generated such data, but critiques the style of data collected. Suitable for graduate students.

                                                                                                                                                                                                Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                                • Boothroyd, Roger. A., Cynthia Calkins Mercado, Norman G. Poythress, Annette Christy, and John Petrila. 2005. Clinical outcomes of defendants in mental health court. Psychiatric Services 56.7: 829–834.

                                                                                                                                                                                                  DOI: 10.1176/appi.ps.56.7.829E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                                  Study evaluates the effect of increased access to treatment in a single mental health court on client outcomes, finding no significant difference, probably reflecting the nature of mental illness among sample participants. Suitable for graduate students.

                                                                                                                                                                                                  Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                                  • Goldkamp, J. S., M. D. White, and J. B. Robinson. 2001. Do drug courts work? Getting inside the drug court black box. Journal of Drug Issues 31:27–72.

                                                                                                                                                                                                    E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                                    Article calls for uniform typology of drug courts and analysis of data from two drug courts to determine what aspects of drug court practice—treatment, sanctions, and appearances before the drug court judge—contribute to successful outcomes. Suitable for graduate students. Available online to subscribers.

                                                                                                                                                                                                    Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                                    • Jensen, Eric L., and Clayton Mosher. 2006. Adult drug courts: Emergence, growth, outcome evaluations, and the need for a continuum of care. Idaho Law Review 42.2: 443–470.

                                                                                                                                                                                                      E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                                      More recent study reviewing Belenko’s research and updating it with data from more recent studies, confirms reduction in recidivism rates during participation in drug programs and after graduation, but notes that data may include certain selection biases and lack adequate comparison groups. Suitable for graduate students. Available online to subscribers.

                                                                                                                                                                                                      Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                                      • Wolff, Nancy, and Wendy Pogorzelski. 2005. Measuring the effectiveness of mental health courts: Challenges and recommendations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 11.4: 539–569.

                                                                                                                                                                                                        DOI: 10.1037/1076-8971.11.4.539E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                                        Article discusses difficulties in evaluating mental health court given the disparity and change among such courts, and suggests that data collection should emphasize with particularity the nature and stability of the type of intervention, and the local influences from the environment and population may permit detailed, persuasive studies. Suitable for graduate students.

                                                                                                                                                                                                        Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                                        Race and Class Issues

                                                                                                                                                                                                        O’Hear 2009 argues that minorities are over-represented in the criminal justice system in general, and drug courts in particular. While Wolf 2008–2009 describes ways in which problem-solving courts may engage in the sort of data collection and service provision necessary to address the needs of minority participants, Beckerman and Fontana 2001 shows that there is a paucity of research on the impact of race, poverty, and gender on problem-solving court procedures. According to Bedrick and Skolnick 1999, poorer offenders are more likely to agree to go to problem-solving court than rich ones—perhaps, Boldt 1998 suggests, due to inadequate representation during the plea process. The differential impact of the criminal justice system on poor individuals may be exacerbated for minorities, whom Boldt 1998 and O’Hear 2009 describe as much more likely to receive incarcerative sentences than nonminorities. Beckerman and Fontana 2001 describes minorities as likely to regard drug addiction as a symptom of racism and poverty, which they identify as the real cause of antisocial behavior. While Wright 2006 considers drug courts a useful palliative to racial disparities in the criminal justice system, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers 2009 argues that drug courts are unresponsive to the special hardships faced by minorities seeking to participate in their programs. Cresswell and Deschenes 2001 engages in an empirical study of the minority and non-minority participants’ perceptions of the severity of the graduated sanctions used in drug court, finding that, although the two groups rated sentence severity differently, there were few differences in perceived program effectiveness.

                                                                                                                                                                                                        • Beckerman, Adela, and Leonard Fontana. 2001. Issues of race and gender in court-ordered substance abuse treatment. In Drug courts in operation: Current research. Edited by James J. Hennessy and Nathaniel J. Pallone, 45–61. New York: Haworth.

                                                                                                                                                                                                          E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                                          Major, chapter-length analysis of the different priorities given to issues of race versus addiction, by African American men and women and mostly white drug court judges, in their explanation of offenders’ treatment within the criminal justice system and drug courts. Suitable for graduate students.

                                                                                                                                                                                                          Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                                          • Bedrick, Brooke, and Jerome H. Skolnick. 1999. From “treatment” to “justice” in Oakland, California. In The early drug courts: Case studies in judicial innovation. Edited by W. Clinton Terry III, 43–76. Drugs, Health, and Social Policy Series 7. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

                                                                                                                                                                                                            E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                                            Provides statistical evidence suggesting that poorer offenders are more likely to agree to go to drug court than rich ones. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                                                                                                                            Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                                            • Boldt, Richard. 1998. Rehabilitative punishment and the drug treatment court movement. Washington University Law Quarterly 76.4: 1205–1306.

                                                                                                                                                                                                              E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                                              Brief discussion addresses manner in which socially constructed categories of criminal responsibility and race and class interact in criminal justice setting. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                                                                                                                              Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                                              • Cresswell, Laura Sian, and Elizabeth “Libby” Deschenes. 2001. Minority and non-minority perceptions of drug court program severity and effectiveness. Journal of Drug Issues 31.1: 259–292.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                                                Article examining variation between minority and non-minority participants’ perceptions of the severity and effectiveness of the drug court program in Orange County, California.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                • National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. 2009. America’s problem-solving courts: The criminal costs of treatment and the case for reform.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Brief analysis of impact of drug court on racial minorities and the poor, groups that face special burdens in attempting to access problem-solving courts. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  • O’Hear, Michael M. 2009. Rethinking drug courts: Restorative justice as a response to racial injustice. Stanford Law and Policy Review 20.2: 463–500.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                    E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Extended discussion of the interaction of race and drug crime in problem-solving courts, argues that drug courts fail to moderate the incarceration rates of African Americans. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                    • Wolf, Robert V. 2008–2009. Race, bias, and problem-solving courts. National Black Law Journal 21.1: 27–52.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                      E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Discusses the types of bias producing disparate racial impacts in the criminal justice system, and argues that problem-solving courts address some of the causes of such disparities. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                      • Wright, Michael. 2006. Reversing the prison landscape: The role of drug courts in reducing minority incarceration. Rutgers Race and the Law Review 8.1: 79–106.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                        E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Argues that a significant feature of the criminal justice system is the over-incarceration of minorities, and that the diversionary emphasis of drug courts can solve the problem of over-incarceration. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students. Available online to subscribers.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Social and Legal Critiques

                                                                                                                                                                                                                        A variety of social theories have emerged to account for the problem-solving court movement’s transformation of courtroom practice and criminal justice innovations. These range from the claim of Dorf and Sabel 2000 that problem-solving courts are experimentalist institutions, or the analysis of these courts by Simon 2004, using a social norms version of rational choice theory, to Nolan 2001, Mackenzie 2008, and Fagan and Malkin 2003, who criticize the drug court’s decentralized and low-level policing and production of individual character, or the discussions of Mirchandani 2008 and Miller 2009 of problem-solving courts as centers of democratic deliberation. Each of these different theories seeks to provide some larger understanding of the place of problem-solving courts, not only within the criminal justice system, but as a social or cultural institution.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                        • Dorf, Michael C., and Charles F. Sabel. 2000. Drug treatment courts and emergent experimentalist government. Vanderbilt Law Review 53.3: 829–884.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Pioneering discussion of drug courts as diffuse local organizations employing different problem-solving techniques, providing feedback on the efficacy of different treatments for particular addicts, and pooling information to distinguish which types of treatment and service providers are most effective. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          • Fagan, Jeffrey, and Victoria Malkin. 2003. Theorizing community justice through community courts. Fordham Urban Law Review 30.3: 897–954.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Article theorizes community justice from the different sociological perspectives of legitimacy and social control and describing the complex institutional, social, legal, and political dynamics impacting community courts. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            • Mackenzie, Robin. 2008. Feeling good: The ethopolitics of pleasure, psychoactive substance use and public health and criminal justice system governance: Therapeutic jurisprudence and the drug courts in the United States of America. Social and Legal Studies 17.4: 513–533.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                              DOI: 10.1177/0964663908097083E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Innovative critique of drug courts as moralizing and politicizing public health and addiction in terms of normal and deviant pleasure. Suitable for graduate students.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                              • Miller, Eric J. 2009. Drugs, courts, and the new penology. Stanford Law and Policy Review 20.2: 101–145.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Article proposes to replace the drug court’s therapeutic methodology, characterized as discipline-as-treatment, with a participative, deliberative democracy model of community participation. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                • Mirchandani, Rekha. 2008. Beyond therapy: Problem-solving courts and the deliberative democratic state. Law and Social Inquiry 33.4: 853–893.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-4469.2008.00126.xE-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Article powerfully distinguishes the sociological approach to problem-solving courts as an aspect of social control and disciplinary power from an analysis of such courts as part of an inclusive deliberative democratic process legitimating such courts’ informal, community-oriented style. Suitable for graduate students.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  • Nolan, James L., Jr. 2001. Reinventing justice: The American drug court movement. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Seminal sociological study of the drug court movement critiques the move away from due process to a more free-flowing treatment style of justice. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    • Simon, William H. 2004. Solving problems v. claiming rights: The pragmatist challenge to legal liberalism. William and Mary Law Review 46.1.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Article proposes that drug court practitioners should replace the dominant, rights-and-process-based liberal legal justifications of legal practice with a pragmatist vision of democratic governance as learning and experimentation.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Challenging the Court-Centered Model

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Thompson 2002, Quinn 2000–2001, and Pinard and Thompson 2006 each raise one central complaint about problem-solving courts: that judges with limited training and expertise are unqualified to dispense the sort of public health treatment traditionally provided by a variety of social service experts and, in particular, parole officers. Bowers 2008 argues that the incentives provided by such courts may permit those in least need of therapeutic aid strategically to game the system to avoid conventional punishment and gain the benefits of diversion from the traditional criminal justice system. Malkin 2003 argues that even if the different stakeholders in a problem-solving court agree over the diagnoses of the problems facing the community, they may diverge over solutions, with the judge wielding disproportionate influence as a community figure. Pinard 2006 suggests that judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys are often unaware of the ways in which the collateral consequences of a prison sentence work to undermine offender reentry. Finally, Boldt 1998 discusses the ways in which problem-solving courts are expressly designed to work within the system rather than to challenge it and so may mask the larger social ills that cause the various problems these courts address.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      • Boldt, Richard. 1998. Rehabilitative punishment and the drug treatment court movement. Washington University Law Quarterly 76.4: 1205–1306.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Investigates drug courts’ impact on participants’ dignitary interests in comparison with other rehabilitative models. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        • Bowers, Josh. 2008. Contraindicated drug courts. UCLA Law Review 55.4: 783–836.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Comparison of the outcomes for the defendant resulting from the choice to enter or avoid drug court, and the pressure to game the system by advising only non-addicted defendants to participate in the court process. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          • Malkin, Victoria. 2003. Community courts and the process of accountability: Consensus and conflict at the Red Hook Community Justice Center. American Criminal Law Review 40.4: 1573–1594.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Discusses the political and social impact of a court- and judge-oriented model of problem-solving justice on community participation in decision-making process, and competition for limited resources among community organizations and courts. Suitable for graduate students.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            • Pinard, Michael. 2006. An integrated perspective on the collateral consequences of criminal convictions and reentry issues faced by formerly incarcerated individuals. Boston University Law Review 86.3: 623–690.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Article links the collateral consequences and reentry aspects of criminal convictions as integrated aspects of criminal policy and describes the impact of such an approach on practice-based strategies, including the problem-solving approach advocated by proponents of reentry courts. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              • Pinard, Michael, and Anthony C. Thompson. 2006. Offender reentry and the collateral consequences of criminal convictions: An introduction. New York University Review of Law and Social Change 30.4: 585–620.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Questions the propriety of judicial assumption of probationary role in reentry model of problem-solving court. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                • Quinn, Mae C. 2000–2001. Whose team am I on anyway? Musings of a public defender about drug treatment court practice. New York University Review of Law and Social Change 26.1–2: 37–76.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Critiquing the drug-court status hearings, an essential part of the treatment team model, as a “critical stage” of the process requiring the presence of defense counsel to assert defendants’ rights and ensure due process, or risk drug courts’ claims to legal legitimacy. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  • Thompson, Anthony C., 2002. Courting disorder: Some thoughts on community courts. Washington University Journal of Law and Policy 10:63–100.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Forceful rejection of judicial model of problem-solving in favor of more collaborative approach including community, criminal justice officials, and political institutions.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    The Problem of Net Widening

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Hoffman 2002 originally raised the worry that the very existence of problem-solving courts may “widen the net” of individuals who are caught for drug crimes. Miller 2004 suggests that both the speedy case disposition and attention to low-level crimes permits law-enforcement officials to make arrests and file cases that would otherwise have evaded prosecution. Dorf and Sabel 2000 maintains that problem-solving courts, both deliberately, as part of the quality of life or broken windows movement, or accidentally provide an incentive for criminal justice officials and treatment providers to include more individuals in the system. This net-widening, feedback effect suggests that drug courts succeed in catching individuals who would otherwise be processed out of the criminal justice system. Berman and Gulick 2003 suggest that, from a treatment perspective, this may be a positive good: individuals who are in need of treatment but fail to seek it are now forced into the treatment they need.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    • Berman, Greg, and Anne Gulick. 2003. Just the (unwieldy, hard to gather, but nonetheless essential) facts, Ma’am: What we know and don’t know about problem-solving courts. Fordham Urban Law Review 30.3: 1027–1054.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Discussion of drug, community, and domestic violence courts; authors dispute claims that problem-solving courts engage in net-widening. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students. Part of a special series, Problem-Solving Courts and Therapeutic Jurisprudence. Available online to subscribers.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      • Dorf, Michael C., and Charles F. Sabel. 2000. Drug treatment courts and emergent experimentalist government. Vanderbilt Law Review 53.3: 829–884.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Balanced discussion of the risks of net-widening and its significance, given other benefits of drug court practices. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        • Hoffman, Morris B. 2002. Therapeutic jurisprudence, neo-rehabilitationism, and judicial collectivism: The least dangerous branch becomes most dangerous. Fordham Urban Law Journal 29.5: 2063–2098.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Essential description of the phenomenon of net-widening in drug courts by a former drug court judge, proposes that problem-solving practice channels low-level offenders into the criminal justice system. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          • Miller, Eric J., 2004. Embracing addiction: Drug courts and the false promise of judicial interventionism. Ohio State Law Journal 65.6: 1479–1576.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Arguing, in part, drug courts work to “widen the net” by permitting offenders to be dealt with en masse, providing the police and prosecutor with a costless alternative to dismissing minor cases that would otherwise not go to court.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Proposals for Reform

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Recent academic literature presents a variety of proposals for reform. One type of reform, often presented on behalf of the defense bar, is the assertion of Pinard 2004 that counsel should engage more in an approach to problem-solving court lawyering that considers its collateral effects, and so, Bowers 2008 recommends, encourage defense counsel to exercise caution (or have power similar to that of prosecutors) in selecting among criminal justice processes, including the choice to enter problem-solving court. Thompson 2004 proposes bolstering defender participation by arranging for students and law school clinics to make up the difference. More radical solutions proposed by Lanni 2005, O’Hear 2009, and Miller 2009 seek to minimize the active therapeutic orientation of the judge by emphasizing her more passive role, i.e., as matching offenders to treatment, or by removing the judge from the equation altogether, by instituting a grand-jury style of problem solving to permit direct community participation.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            • Bowers, Josh. 2008. Contraindicated drug courts. UCLA Law Review 55.4: 783–836.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Proposes a voluntary, opt-in model of drug-court supervision understood from a behavioral economic perspective as a nudge for addicts beginning the road to recovery. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              • Lanni, Adriaan. 2005. The future of community justice. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 40.2: 359–406.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Evaluates a variety of problem-solving or community justice approaches, including community courts, sentencing circles, and citizen reparative boards, and argues that localized, popular decision-making is best served through a grand jury procedure rather than current court practices. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                • Miller, Eric J.2009. Drugs, courts, and the new penology. Stanford Law and Policy Review 20.2: 101–145.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Proposes a participative, noncoercive grand jury model to replace the current emphasis on judge-led drug courts as a means of promoting mutual respect for members of the community as peers sharing diverse values. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  • O’Hear, Michael M. 2009. Rethinking drug courts: Restorative justice as a response to racial injustice. Stanford Law and Policy Review 20.2: 463–500.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Argues that restorative justice, and in particular the community-conferencing programs that are a central part of its methodology, provide an attractive alternative to drug courts. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    • Pinard, Michael. 2004. Broadening the holistic mindset: Incorporating collateral consequences and reentry into criminal defense lawyering. Fordham Urban Law Journal 31.4: 1067–1096.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Proposes the creation of specialized model programs for reentry teams to practice a holistic approach to prisoner reentry, particularly addressing the noncriminal, collateral-consequences reentry. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      • Thompson, Anthony C. 2004. Navigating the hidden obstacles to ex-offender reentry. Boston College Law Review 45.2: 255–306.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Proposes, as alternatives to reentry courts, more generalist and integrated public-defender offices dedicated to the full range of reentry issues, and student-staffed clinical opportunities provided through law schools as a means of developing nontraditional representation of ex-offenders. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Extension to Foreign Jurisdictions

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Nolan 2009 describes the manner in which a variety of countries, primarily England, Scotland, Ireland, Canada, and Australia, have recently adopted the problem-solving courts. These jurisdictions vary in their attitudes to problem-solving courts, both in the range of court practice areas and court styles. King 2008 and Makkai 2002, discussing the Australian model, and Bakht 2005, discussing the Canadian, demonstrate that these are closest to the American philosophy, both in style and types of court. McIvor 2009, reporting on Scotland, and the National Crime Council 2007 report discussing Ireland’s drug court, demonstrate that each jurisdiction is firmly focused on drug addiction and their own, more traditional, courtroom practice; England and Wales, according to Bean 2002 or Burton 2006, are more in the middle, promoting a greater variety of problem-solving courts while still remaining moderately hostile to an Americanized process. Finally, Nolan 2009 suggests, all the foreign jurisdictions feature a much closer integration with probation services than do most American problem-solving courts.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        • Bakht, N. 2005. Problem solving courts as agents of change. Criminal Law Quarterly 50.3: 12–38.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Article discusses a variety of problem-solving courts, including drug courts, mental health courts, and aboriginal courts, in the United States, Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          • Bean, Philip. 2002. Drug treatment courts, British style: The drug user treatment court movement in Britain. In Drug courts: Current issues and future perspectives. Edited by Lana D. Harrison, Frank R. Scarpitti, Menachem Amir, and Stanley Einstein, 137–152. The Uncertainty Series 3. Huntsville, TX: Office of International Criminal Justice.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Evaluates the development of drug treatment courts in Britain and the Republic of Ireland, arguing that while no British jurisdiction has adopted the American model in full, Scotland and Ireland endorse some form of drug court in contrast to the weaker Drug Treatment and Testing Orders used in England and Wales, which do not permit the team approach typical of problem-solving courts. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            • Burton, Mandy. 2006. Judicial monitoring of compliance: Introducing problem solving approaches to domestic violence courts in England and Wales. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 20.3: 366–378.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              DOI: 10.1093/lawfam/ebl017E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Examines the introduction of specialist domestic violence courts in England and Wales, which stop short of the problem-solving methodology employed in some American courts, and argues for American-style judicial monitoring of defendants. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              • King, Michael S. 2008. Restorative justice, therapeutic jurisprudence and the rise of emotionally intelligent justice. Melbourne University Law Review 32.3: 1096–1126.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                A pioneering article by an Australian judge promotes the extension of problem-solving skills, requiring attention to feelings, motivations, and intentions; also required are increased prominence, legal education, training, and court practice. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                • Makkai, Toni. 2002. The emergence of drug treatment courts in Australia. Journal of Substance Misuse and Use 37.12–13: 1567–1594.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  DOI: 10.1081/JA-120014422E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Article places the rise of drug courts against the backdrop of rising incarceration and increased drug use, and discusses the Australian embrace of American-style problem-solving practices. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  • McIvor, Gill. 2009. Therapeutic jurisprudence and procedural justice in Scottish drug courts. Criminology and Criminal Justice 9.1: 29–49.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    DOI: 10.1177/1748895808099179E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    By means of interviews conducted with drug court judges and participants, author studies the Scottish model of drug courts, which adopts some elements of the therapeutic approach and engenders legitimacy and self-esteem in participants through courtroom dialogue. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    • Nolan, James L., Jr. 2009. Legal accents, legal borrowing: The international problem-solving court movement. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Essential, book-length study reviews the variety of problem-solving courts established in the United States, England, Scotland, Ireland, Canada, and Australia, and examines the manner in which adoption and adaptation of problem-solving approaches transforms indigenous conceptions of justice. Suitable for undergraduate and graduate students.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      • National Crime Council. 2007. Problem solving justice: The case for community courts in Ireland. Catalogue Lists J/257. Dublin, Ireland: Stationery Office.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        E-mail Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Pamphlet-length government study presents the case for developing a community court in Dublin, Ireland, and recommends a range of formal procedures and protections to structure the court.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        back to top

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        How to Subscribe

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions and individuals. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Purchase an Ebook Version of This Article

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Ebooks of the Oxford Bibliographies Online subject articles are available in North America via a number of retailers including Amazon, vitalsource, and more. Simply search on their sites for Oxford Bibliographies Online Research Guides and your desired subject article.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        If you would like to purchase an eBook article and live outside North America please email onlinemarketing@oup.com to express your interest.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Article

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Up

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Down