Therapeutic jurisprudence in Australia: Paradigm shift or pragmatic incrementalism (original) (raw)
Related papers
How Justice 'Gets Done': Politics, Managerialism, Consumerism, and Therapeutic Jurisprudence
How criminal justice ‘gets done’ ultimately depends on the social context at any given historical moment. This paper: a) highlights how adversarial sentencing practice which has traditionally sat in the domain of Australia’s criminal courts is changing with moves towards therapeutic jurisprudence, i.e. problem-solving courts and restorative justice, b) outlines what social and theoretical forces are contributing to these modifications, c) provides a challenge for government, policy makers, criminal justice personnel and the public to consider more closely the positives and negatives of the changes taking place.
A Cautionary Note on Therapeutic Jurisprudence for Aboriginal Offenders
2011
Therapeutic jurisprudence (TJ) is a recent legal practice reform, requiring judges and lawyers to attend to offenders' wellbeing. Despite being lauded as the 'most prolific vector' of the Comprehensive Law Movement, TJ has also been condemned as ineffectual, even dangerous. In this paper we review TJ in three sections: the problems TJ seeks to address, how TJ is applied and its requirements, and the new problems TJ produces. This paper exposes tensions between established legal principles and efficacy or recidivism concerns that drive the TJ agenda. It concludes that a judiciary that concerns itself with offenders' social and psychological problems may undermine established legal principles.
Therapeutic Jurisprudence: the Application to an England and Wales Review Court
Whilst the Therapeutic Jurisprudence ("TJ") paradigm and related movements have proliferated across jurisdictions worldwide, England and Wales has significantly lagged behind. This thesis examines the therapeutic quality of Manchester Review Court ("MRC") using TJ lenses. MRC is a specialist court in England and Wales, which possesses a problemsolving rationale by bringing offenders back for regular review of recovery and lawcompliance on the core Drug Rehabilitation Requirement ("DRR") component. There is no detail of MRC in the accessible literature, no mention on the UK Justice Innovation website, not in the media, not in any policy document, nor is there a court handbook or website outlining objectives and expected practice. However, MRC arguably represents the remains of the six England and Wales Drug Court pilots, established during the early noughties, and which since appear to have been closed down. In the absence of available literature, the aim of this thesis is to provide a groundwork of knowledge to a significantly underexplored area. Positing both "wine" and "bottle" (Wexler, 2014) level research questions, it uses mixed methods (standardised observations, surveys, and interviews) as well as an enveloping ethnographic stage to answer the two-tiered questions within an overall qualitative genre. The methods are justified using the Critical Realism paradigm and data points are brought together using a triangulation rationale within a broader case study approach. One of the original contributions of this thesis is positing a new empirical tool to measure the therapeutic quality of the wine ("judicial interpersonal skills") within problem-solving court contexts. To do so, it uses Principal Component Analysis to arrange eighteen sub-skills on three measurement scales: "harnessing therapeutic support", "engaging therapeutic dialogue" and "inspiring therapeutic change". Implementing these scales for measurement of the "wine" data suggests that the magistrates' interpersonal skills at MRC were largely TJ infused and the most prominent of the eighteen sub-skills exhibited within their interactions were: "understanding the complexity of Alcohol and Other Drugs recovery", "motivating individual", "giving the offender a voice", and "setting realistic goals". However, extending the analysis towards the bottle (laws, provisions, rules, and procedures), the data indicates that the wine was operated within a significantly anti-therapeutic bottle. Where England and Wales' current criminal justice system is emphasising privatisation, centralisation, and austerity measures, the bottle remains unfriendly and is thwarting effective application of TJ at MRC. If MRC were repackaged in a way that subscribes to the current criminal justice climate without eroding other core values and priorities, this would invariably pave way for a more successful future for problem-solving court craft. This, in turn, could help in tackling deep-seated current social and human issues surrounding recidivism, addiction, and austerity. I dedicate this thesis to my Mum, Claire Kawalek, and my Dad, John Kawalek to say thank you for their continuous love.
International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 2016
Available online xxxx Mental health courts represent a key component of contemporary responses to mental illness and disability in the criminal justice system, and yet there is uncertainty about how these courts should balance their punishment and treatment roles. This paper reports an analysis of interviews with court professionals which considers their understanding of the rationale underpinning an Australian mental health court, its effectiveness in achieving its criminal justice and clinical goals, and of broader notions of therapeutic jurisprudence. This reveals considerable support for diversionary mental health court programs of this type and professional confidence that this type of program is effective. However, the analysis also highlights conflict in the practice frameworks of the different professional groups who regularly contribute to the operations of the court. Suggestions to enhance service delivery are offered.
2011
Drug treatment courts (DTCs) are more likely to be embraced by-and to thrive in-jurisdictions that value rehabilitation, rather than those that are focused almost exclusively on punishing past wrongdoing. In turn, rehabilitation can be fostered by a legal system's willingness to promote the perspective and principles of therapeutic jurisprudence (TJ). This chapter will introduce TJ, touch on its relationship to DTCs, and propose a roadmap for its application in practice. DTCs and TJ are close cousins, but they are not identical twins. DTCs began atheoretically and 'in the trenches' by practical, creative, intuitive, and frustrated judges desperate to break the revolving door cycle-arrest, conviction, sentence, release, arrest-of drug addicted offenders in the criminal justice system. In contrast, TJ began, at about the same time, as an academic approach looking at the therapeutic and anti-therapeutic impact of the law (legal rules, legal procedures, and the roles of legal actors). 1 About ten years later, in a classic article by American drug court judges Peggy Hora and William Schma, the close connection between DTCs and TJ was underscored, and a symbiotic relationship was solidly established. 2 In fact, Judges Hora and Schma proposed TJ and its principles as a guiding theory for DTCs, and, since then, the two perspectives have been virtually inseparable. Many practices of DTCs, such as graduation ceremonies and follow-up hearings have captured the interest of TJ scholars, and TJ writing (e.g., how judges might enhance compliance with judicial orders and conditions of release) has in turn affected the daily operation of DTCs and other so-called 'problem-solving' courts. Nonetheless, although the conventional wisdom is that DTCs routinely 'apply' TJ principles, there are several instances where, in our judgment, drug court judges do not use what we regard as the better TJ practices-where the judges have become somewhat heavy-handed or