INNOVATIONS IN THE COURT SYSTEM (original) (raw)

‘A Problem Shared...?’ Some Reflections on Problem Solving Courts and Court Innovation in Australia

2013

There has been growing interest in recent years in developing ‘non-adversarial’ forms of court based justice, and exploring the potential for courts to take a lead role in resolving the underlying issues that ensure repeated contact with the justice system for particular groups. Problem Oriented Courts, such as community courts, drug courts, family violence courts and the like, originated in the USA but have taken root in societies across the globe. This article emerges primarily out of research and policy development work intended to inform an initiative in Victoria Australia called the Next Generation Courts initiative, which sought mainstream the problem oriented approach by adopting the non-adversarial paradigm as the basis for all future court development in Victoria.

Beyond the Revolving Court Door. Is it Time for Problem-Solving Courts?

Scottish Justice Matters

Is it time for a radical re-think in the way in which the justice system deals with offenders? Are there better and more constructive ways of dealing with the problem of offending at its roots, or, are we stuck with a revolving door of re-offending? The 2012 Report of the Commission on Women Offenders recommended a pilot ‘Problem-Solving Court’ (PSC) for ‘repeat offenders with multiple and complex needs who commit lower level crimes.’ That recommendation, accepted by the Scottish Government, was followed by the visit of three senior PSC judges from the USA who gave a public lecture at Strathclyde University and had discussions with the Justice Secretary, senior officials, members of the judiciary and others.

The Future of Problem-Solving Courts: Inside the Courts and Beyond

University of Maryland Law Journal of Race Religion Gender and Class, 2013

I. INTRODUCTION I appreciate the invitation from the University of Maryland School of Law to participate in this Symposium on problem-solving courts and thank the faculty and student organizers of the University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender and Class for arranging the event and for their warm hospitality. Through my participation in the Symposium and the conversations I had with other Symposium participants, I have refined my thinking about problemsolving courts, the problems which find their way into these courts, and the goals of such courts in implementing remedial solutions to social problems. I have increasingly come to value community-based approaches to many of the issues addressed in problem-solving courts. Such strategies reflect that seeking recourse in the formal criminal justice system should, whenever possible, be a measure of "last resort."' This Article considers my experiences conducting field research in a variety of problem-solving courts across southern California and the implications of my observations for understanding how problem-solving courts may improve in the future, including how problem-solving efforts outside the courts can be expanded. On a micro-analytic level, I have found that not all problemsolving courts or judges are alike and that some practices and courts seem to work better than others. It is thus useful to ground our understanding of "what works" in problem-solving courts in large part on close observations, detailed descriptions, and systematic analysis of the actual day-today happenings "inside" specific problem-solving courts in local jurisdictions. 2 On a macro-analytic level, the operation of the entire criminal justice system, not just the courts, must be considered (e.g., criminalization of "offenses," policing practices, and

The Problem of Problem-Solving Courts

SSRN Electronic Journal, 2019

The creation of a specialized, "problem-solving" court is a ubiquitous response to the issues that plague our criminal legal system. The courts promise to address the factors believed to lead to repeated interactions with the system, such as addiction or mental illness, thereby reducing recidivism and saving money. And they do so effectively-at least according to their many proponents, who celebrate them as an example of a successful "evidence-based," data-driven reform. But the actual data on their efficacy is underwhelming, inconclusive, or altogether lacking. So why do they persist? This Article seeks to answer that question by scrutinizing the role of judges in creating and sustaining the problem-solving court movement. It contends problem-solving courts do effectively address a problem-it is just not the one we think. It argues that these courts revive a sense of purpose and authority for judges in an era marked by diminishing judicial power. Moreover, it demonstrates that the courts have developed and proliferated relatively free from objective oversight. Together, these new insights help explain why the problem-solving court model endures. They also reveal a new problem with the model itself-its entrenchment creates resistance to alternatives that might truly reform or transform the system.

Court Innovations and Access to Justice in Times of Crisis

Health Policy and Technology, 2020

COVID-19 has disrupted not only the health sector but also justice systems. Courts around the world have had to respond quickly to the challenges presented by the pandemic and the associated social distancing restrictions. This has created significant challenges for the justice system and such challenges are likely to be further compounded in the post-pandemic era as there is a 'tsunami' of COVID-19-related disputes predicted. This study will examine how global court responses have transitioned from being primarily traditional, face-to-face proceedings to online court processes (as supported by internet technology). By adopting a comparative approach, we will analyse how some countries have adopted to this shift to online mode while also maintaining a focus on access to justice. We argue that online modes of dispute resolution, often referred to as Online Dispute Resolution (ODR), can promote resolution while facilitating social distancing in this new COVID-era. The rapid shift from traditional court processes to an online mode has further assisted the public, lawyers and experts to access the justice system in some jurisdictions, even during the crisis. In light of the scale of recent changes, there have been concerns about the capacity of courts to adopt newer technologies as well as issues relating to the impact of a new online model of justice, particularly in terms of the barriers for more vulnerable members of society. Further, the use of disruptive technologies in some courts have posed questions around whether outcomes generated by these innovations reflect the meaning of 'justice' in its traditional sense. This article argues that courts should embrace newer technologies that support court services while being mindful of possible tech-related issues that can impact on justice objectives. We argue that by placing further emphasis on alternative dispute resolution methods and ODR into the future, this might offset the likely tsunami of COVID-related litigation which would enable courts, hospitals, medical professionals and patients to settle disputes in a just, equitable and more efficient manner.