Situating Community Courts (original) (raw)
Related papers
Community Justice Courts a New Approach: Community Engagement and Problem Solving
In recent years a number of changes have emerged in terms of the way in which 'justice' is approached. This has particularly been evidenced by the national drive towards more community justice orientated initiatives. Community involvement is increasingly being championed as the way forward for criminal justice policy especially in response to AntiSocial Behaviour (ASB) and with the emergence of the Community Justice Court. Community Justice Courts represent a radical development for criminal justice policy within the UK, a development which has been significantly influenced by the much vaunted success of the Red Hook Community Justice Centre in the US. The extent to which these courts are truly effective at delivering a form of community orientated justice, and, how they differ from traditional practice, is yet to be seen within the UK. This paper reviews the emergence of Community Justice Courts in connection with ASB policy and the consequent shifts in the Community Justice Approach in the UK. It then provides an illustration of the framework for my doctoral research by unpacking two key issues which distinguish these courts from the more traditional approaches to justice, namely, community engagement and problem solving.
2014
conference concerning some of the fundamental "knowns " in the field of incarceration and various forms of detention. It is important to set these "knowns " out clearly because every piece of research on these matters indicates the same things. In the field it is known that the crime rate does not go down the more people are put in prison. It is also known that NSW and New Zealand could halve their prison populations tomorrow, and do no damage to the crime rate by not putting offenders with a sentence of under six months into prison, but rather by giving them a semi-custodial or community order with supervision. Everybody knows that our gaols are full, but not of murderers, rapists and armed robbers. They form only some 10 to 15 per cent of the prison population. Our prisons are full of people who are there for highly identifiable and predictable social reasons like being poor, being black, living in the wrong suburb and being ill-educated. A statement that every...
Theorizing Community Justice through Community Courts
2003
INTRODUCTION Community justice practitioners argue that the justice system has long ignored its biggest clients--citizens and neighborhoods that suffer the everyday consequences of high crime levels. (1) One response from legal elites has been a package of court innovations and new practices known as "community justice," part of a broader appeal to "community" and "partnership" common now in modern discourse on crime control. (2) This concept incorporates several contemporary visions and expressions of justice within the popular and legal literatures: problem-solving courts (such as drug courts, mental health courts, domestic violence courts, gun courts, and, of course, juvenile courts); the inclusion of victims and communities in the sanction process; community policing; partnerships between citizens and legal institutions; and alternative models of dispute resolution. (3) For court reformers, the conceptual ground and animating thought for problem-sol...
Anti-Social Behaviour, Community Engagement and the Judicial Role
A problem-solving approach to anti-social behaviour (ASB) cases has recently been embedded into magistrates’ courts in England and Wales. This approach incorporates core components of the Anti-Social Behaviour Response Court (ASBRC) model and is underpinned by principles of community justice. This article summarizes some of the main findings of an 18-month ESRC-funded study that investigated how far the ASBRC model has been absorbed into mainstream courts in England and Wales. This research suggests that courts have not embedded community justice principles, nor have they altered their focus to incorporate a significant degree of liaison with the community. The article concludes with some observations on the implications of the findings for the development and enhancement of community engagement and community justice principles.
Rebalancing Criminal Justice: Potentials and Pitfalls for Community Neighbourhood Panels
The coalition government have pledged a commitment to a shift from 'Big Government' that presumes to know best, to the 'Big Society' that trusts in people for ideas and innovation to mend Britain's 'broken society'. While the policy implications of this shift remain opaque at this stage, further work has been undertaken to articulate what this strategy entails (see Cabinet Office, 2010). Five key themes have emerged which promise a dramatic shake-up of the system. This paper focuses on the theme that most closely relates to notions of 'Big Society' - restorative justice. In the current economic climate it is perhaps unsurprising that the coalition is supportive of restorative justice, as it mirrors the desire to redistribute power from central government to local communities and individuals. The Liberal Democrat experimentation with Community Justice Panels (now being referred to as Neighbourhood Justice Panels or NJPs) in the run-up to the general election has been highlighted as a measure that will be introduced to combat low-level offending and antisocial behaviour. This is given particular consideration as it involves local communities and victims themselves responding to offending behaviour rather than the state. NJPs, it is claimed, have a dramatic impact on recidivism rates in comparison to the traditional criminal justice process and a corresponding reduction on police time and resources. However, as Crawford & Newburn (2002) highlight, England has traditionally adopted a more punitive approach towards dealing with offending behaviour due to widespread public anxiety about crime and political competition to secure votes. Thus, this paper seeks to explore the potential implementational difficulties and resistance that may come from communities and criminal justice practitioners, particularly the police, to this model.
Rebalancing Criminal Justice: Potentials and Pitfalls for Community
British Journal of Community Justice, 2011
The coalition government have pledged a commitment to a shift from 'Big Government' that presumes to know best, to the 'Big Society' that trusts in people for ideas and innovation to mend Britain's 'broken society'. While the policy implications of this shift remain opaque at this stage, further work has been undertaken to articulate what this strategy entails (see Cabinet Office, 2010). Five key themes have emerged which promise a dramatic shake-up of the system. This paper focuses on the theme that most closely relates to notions of 'Big Society'-restorative justice. In the current economic climate it is perhaps unsurprising that the coalition is supportive of restorative justice, as it mirrors the desire to redistribute power from central government to local communities and individuals. The Liberal Democrat experimentation with Community Justice Panels (now being referred to as Neighbourhood Justice Panels or NJPs) in the run-up to the general election has been highlighted as a measure that will be introduced to combat low-level offending and antisocial behaviour. This is given particular consideration as it involves local communities and victims themselves responding to offending behaviour rather than the state. NJPs, it is claimed, have a dramatic impact on recidivism rates in comparison to the traditional criminal justice process and a corresponding reduction on police time and resources. However, as Crawford & Newburn (2002) highlight, England has traditionally adopted a more punitive approach towards dealing with offending behaviour due to widespread public anxiety about crime and political competition to secure votes. Thus, this paper seeks to explore the potential implementational difficulties and resistance that may come from communities and criminal justice practitioners, particularly the police, to this model.
Are Problem-Solving Courts the Way Forward for Justice?
Problem-solving courts are not a new innovation, but their use and implementation appears to be growing across a number of jurisdictions, including the UK. This development suggests there is belief in the ‘therapeutic jurisprudence’ approach that underpins this style of criminal court adjudication; moreover their growth fits within the discourse which points out traditional criminal justice mechanisms too often leave the offender out as an uninvolved actor in the process (Nolan, 2001; Berman and Fox, 2009; Braithwaite, 1989). Processes that draw people in more closely, making them accountable for their actions, and playing an active role in their rehabilitation are more likely to achieve success at reducing reoffending and assisting people to live altered and reformed lives (Hoyle, 2012). This working paper provides some background detail on problem-solving courts and the central guiding principle of therapeutic jurisprudence, and argues court structures that assist people to construct positive self-identities and reintegrate into purposeful lives, and which empower people to play a role in their rehabilitation demonstrate a criminal justice model that has well-being at its core, and puts a human face to the delivery of justice.
Magistrates, Magistrates Courts, and Social Change
Law & Policy, 2007
Relatively little attention has been paid to lower courts' capacity to bring about social change, despite the fact that most citizens who come into contact with the judicial system will have their case considered (and most likely only considered) by these courts. Often these citizens experience a range of problems that are social in origin, including precarious employment, welfare dependence, financial hardship, and various health problems, including mental health and drug dependency. Magistrates courts must respond to social change and its human fallout and, in so doing, can contribute to progressive social change in a local, personal, and incremental way.