Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5bf98f6d76-rs6k2 Total loading time: 0.297 Render date: 2021-04-21T02:00:08.357Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Beyond Therapy: Problem‐Solving Courts and the Deliberative Democratic State

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2018

Abstract

Problem‐solving courts (drug courts, community courts, domestic violence courts, and mental health courts), unlike traditional courts, attempt to get at the root of the individual and social problems that motivate criminal behavior. Theoretical understandings of problem‐solving courts are mostly Foucauldian; proponents argue that these new institutions employ therapeutic techniques that encourage individuals to self‐engineer in ways that subtly increase state power. The Foucauldian approach captures only some elements of problem‐solving courts and does not fully theorize the revolution in justice that these courts present. Problem‐solving courts, domestic violence courts in particular, orient not just around individual change but also around social change and cultural transformation. Combining the Foucauldian idea of a therapeutic state (as developed by James Nolan) with an understanding of the deliberative democratic mechanisms of larger‐scale structural transformation (found in Habermas and others) leads to a more balanced and empirically open orientation to the actual motivations, goals, and achievements of problem‐solving courts.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © American Bar Foundation, 2008 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Abel, Richard L., ed. 1982. The Politics of Informal Justice. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Auerbach, Jerold. 1983. Justice Without Law? New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Beasley, Michele E., and Thomas, Dorothy Q. 1994. Domestic Violence as a Human Rights Issue. In The Public Nature of Private Violence, ed. Fineman, Martha Albertson and Mykitiuk, Roxanne, 323–48. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Beckett, Katherine. 1997. Making Crime Pay: Law and Order in Contemporary American Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Beckett, Katherine, and Sasson, Theodore. 2004. The Politics of Injustice: Crime and Punishment in America. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Berman, Greg. 2000. What Is a Traditional Judge Anyway?: Problem‐Solving in State Courts. Judicature 84:7885.Google Scholar
Berman, Greg, and Feinblatt, John. 2001. Problem‐Solving Courts: A Brief Primer. Law & Policy 23:125–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berman, Greg, and Feinblatt, John. 2005. Good Courts: The Case for Problem‐Solving Justice. New York: New Press.Google Scholar
Boldt, Richard. 1998. Rehabilitative Punishment and the Drug Court Movement. Washington University Law Quarterly 76:12051306.Google Scholar
Casey, Timothy. 2004. When Good Intentions Are Not Enough: Problem‐Solving Courts and the Impending Crisis of Legitimacy. Southern Methodist Law Review 57:14591519.Google Scholar
Clarke, Cait, and Neuhard, James. 2004. “From Day One”: Who's in Control as Problem Solving and Client‐Centered Sentencing Take Center Stage? New York University Law & Social Change 29:1156.Google Scholar
Clear, Todd R., and Karp, David R. 1999. The Community Justice Ideal: Preventing Crime and Achieving Justice. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, Stanley. 1985. Visions of Social Control. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, Stanley, and Scull, Andrew. 1983. Social Control and the State. New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Copelon, Rhonda. 1994. Recognizing the Egregious in the Everyday: Domestic Violence as Torture. Columbia Human Rights Law Review 25:291367.Google Scholar
Council of State Governments. 2005. Mental Health Courts: A National Snapshot. http://consensusproject.org/mhcp/national‐snapshot.pdf (accessed May 25, 2008).Google Scholar
Donzelot, Jacques. 1979. The Policing of Families. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Dorf, Michael C., and Fagan, Jeffrey A. 2003. Community Courts and Community Justice: From Innovation to Institutionalization. American Criminal Law Review 40:1501–11.Google Scholar
Dorf, Michael C., and Sabel, Charles F. 1998. A Constitution of Democratic Experimentalism. Columbia Law Review 98:267473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorf, Michael C., and Sabel, Charles F. 2000. Drug Treatment Courts and Emergent Experimentalist Government. Vanderbilt Law Review 53:829–83.Google Scholar
Eaton, Leslie, and Kaufman, Leslie. 2005. In Problem‐Solving Court, Judges Turn Therapist. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/26/nyregion/26courts.html (accessed May 25, 2008).Google Scholar
Epstein, Deborah. 1999. Effective Intervention in Domestic Violence Cases: Rethinking the Roles of Prosecutors, Judges and the Court System. Yale Law Journal & Feminism 11:350.Google Scholar
Fagan, Jeffrey, and Malkin, Victoria. 2003. Problem Solving Courts and Therapeutic Jurisprudence: Theorizing Community Justice through Community Courts. Fordham Urban Law Journal 30:897953.Google Scholar
Feeley, Malcolm. 1979. The Process Is the Punishment: Handling Cases in a Lower Criminal Court. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Fitzpatrick, Peter. 1988. The Rise and Rise of Informalism. In Informal Justice?, ed. Matthews, Roger, 178–98. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1991. Governmentality. In The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, ed. Burchell, Graham, Gordon, Colin, and Miller, Peter, 87104. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Trans. Sheridan, Alan. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1965. Madness and Civilization. Trans. Howard, Richard. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Garland, David. 1990. Punishment and Modern Society: A Study in Social Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garland, David, and Sparks, Richard. 2000. Criminology and Social Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Giddens, Anthony. 1987. Nine Theses on the Future of Sociology. In Social Theory and Modern Sociology, ed. Giddens, Anthony, 2251. Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Goldkamp, John S. 1994. Justice and Treatment Innovation: The Drug Court Movement. Working Paper of the First National Drug Court Conference, December 1993, National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, US Department of Justice, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Goldkamp, John S. 2000. The Drug Court Response: Issues and Implications for Justice Change. Albany Law Review 63:923–61.Google Scholar
Goldkamp, John S. 2002. Problem‐Solving Courts: From Adversarial Litigation to Innovative Jurisprudence. Fordham Urban Law Journal 29:2000–09.Google Scholar
Goldkamp, John S., and Irons‐Guynn, Cheryl. 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.Google Scholar
Goldkamp, John S., White, Michael D., and Robinson, Jennifer B. 2001. Do Drug Courts Work? Getting Inside the Drug Court Black Box. Journal of Drug Issues 31:2772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, Colin. 1991. Governmental Rationality: An Introduction. In The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, ed. Burchell, Graham, Gordon, Colin, and Miller, Peter, 152. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gordon, Colin. 2000. Introduction. In Power: Essential Works of Foucault 1954–1084, ed. Faubion, James D., xixli. New York: New Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jurgen. 1979. Communication and the Evolution of Society. Trans. McCarthy, Thomas. Boston: Beacon.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jurgen. 1984 1981. Theory of Communicative Action: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Trans. McCarthy, Thomas. Boston: Beacon.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jurgen. 1987 1984. Theory of Communicative Action: Lifeworld and System. Trans. McCarthy, Thomas. Boston: Beacon.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jurgen. 1989. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Trans. Burger, Thomas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jurgen. 1992. Further Reflections on the Public Sphere. In Habermas and the Public Sphere, ed. Calhoun, Craig, 421–62. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jurgen. 1996. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Trans. Rheg, William. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrington, Christine. 1985. Shadow Justice: The Ideology and Institutionalization of Alternatives to Court. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Hoffman, Morris. 2000. The Drug Court Scandal. North Carolina Law Review 78:14371534.Google Scholar
Hofrichter, Richard. 1987. Neighborhood Justice in Capitalist Society: The Expansion of the Informal State. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Hora, Peggy Fulton, Schma, William G., and Rosenthal, John T. A. 1999. Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Drug Court Movement: Revolutionizing the Criminal Justice System's Approach to Drug Abuse and Crime in America. Notre Dame Law Review 742:439538.Google Scholar
Horkheimer, Max, and Adorno, Theodor W. 1987 1944. Dialectic of Enlightenment. Trans. Cumming, John. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Karan, Amy, Kelitz, Susan, and Denaro, Sharon. 1999. Domestic Violence Courts: What are They and How Should We Manage Them? Juvenile and Family Court Journal Spring:7586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaye, Judith. 2006. Refinement or Reinvention, the State of Reform in New York: The Courts. Albany Law Review 69:831–50.Google Scholar
Kaye, Judith. 2004. Delivering Justice Today: A Problem‐Solving Approach. Yale Law & Policy Review 22:125–52.Google Scholar
Kaye, Judith. 2002. Problem‐Solving Courts: From Adversarial Litigation to Innovative Jurisprudence: Eleventh Annual Symposium on Contemporary Urban Challenges: The Changing Face of Justice. Keynote Address. Fordham Urban Law Journal 29:1925–28.Google Scholar
Keilitz, Susan. 2000. Specialized Domestic Violence Case Management: A National Survey. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts.Google Scholar
Lazerson, Mark H. 1982. In the Halls of Justice, the Only Justice is in the Halls. In The Politics of Informal Justice: The American Experience, ed. Abel, Richard L., 119–63. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lee, Eric. 2000. Community Courts: An Evolving Model. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance.Google Scholar
Lind, E. Allen, and Tyler, Tom R. 1988. The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Littel, Kristen. 2003. Specialized Courts and Domestic Violence. http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itdhr/0503/ijde/littel.htm (accessed July 15, 2008).Google Scholar
Marcus, Isabel. 1994. Reframing Domestic Violence: Terrorism in the Home. In The Public Nature of Private Violence, ed. Fineman, Martha Albertson and Mykitiuk, Roxanne, 1135. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Marcuse, Herbert. 1991 1964. One Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
McPherson, Miller, Smith‐Lovin, Lynn, and Brashears, Matthew E. 2006. Social Isolation in American: Changes in Core Discussion Networks over Two Decades. American Sociological Review 71:353–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malkin, Victoria. 2005. The End of Welfare as We Know It: What Happens When the Judge is in Charge. Critique of Anthropology 25:361–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, Roger. 1988. Informal Justice? London: Sage.Google Scholar
Menkel‐Meadow, Carrie. 2004. The Lawyer's Role in Deliberative Democracy: A Commentary By and Responses to Carrie Menkel‐Meadow. Nevada Law Journal 5:347–69.Google Scholar
Menkel‐Meadow, Carrie. 2006. Peace and Justice: Notes on the Evolution and Purposes of Legal Processes: Inaugural Lecture of the A. B. Chettle, Jr. Chair in Dispute Resolution and Civil Procedure. Georgetown Law Journal 94:553–80.Google Scholar
Merry, Sally Engle. 1982. The Social Organization of Mediation in Nonindustrial Societies: Implications for Informal Community Justice in America. In The Politics of Informal Justice: Comparative Studies, ed. Abel, Richard L., 1746. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Meschievitz, Catherine S., and Galanter, Marc. 1982. In Search of Nyaya Panchyats: The Politics of a Moribund Institution. In The Politics of Informal Justice: Comparative Studies, ed. Abel, Richard L., 4773. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Nolan, James L. 1998. The Therapeutic State: Justifying Government at Century's End. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Nolan, James L. 2001. Reinventing Justice: The American Drug Court Movement. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Nolan, James L. 2002a. Drug Courts in Theory and in Practice. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Nolan, James L. 2002b. Therapeutic Adjudication. Society 39:2939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nolan, James L. 2003. Redefining Criminal Courts: Problem‐Solving and the Meaning of Justice. American Criminal Law Review 40:1541–66.Google Scholar
Ostrom, Brian J., and Kauder, Neal B. 1999. Examining the Work of State Courts. Report of the National Center for State Courts. On file with author.Google Scholar
Pavlich, George. 1996. The Power of Community Mediation: Government and Formation of Self‐Identity. Law & Society Review 30:707–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pavlich, George. 2005. Governing Paradoxes of Restorative Justice. London: Glasshouse Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, Robert D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Putnam, Robert D., and Feldstein, Lewis M. 2003. Better Together: Restoring the American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Rice, Stephanie. 2007. Domestic Violence and the Courts: What Next? The Columbian. http://www.columbian.com/printArticle.cfm?story=130295 (article no longer available).Google Scholar
Rieff, Phillip. 1966. The Triumph of the Therapeutic. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Rogers, Matthew. 1988. Informal Justice? London: Sage.Google Scholar
Rose, Nikolas. 1996. The Death of the Social? Re‐Figuring the Territory of Government. Economy and Society 25:327–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, Nikolas. 1999a. Governing the Soul: The Shaping of the Private Self. New York: Free Association Books.Google Scholar
Rose, Nikolas. 1999b. Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, Nikolas, O'Malley, Pat, and Valverde, Mariana. 2006. Governmentality. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 2:83104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schma, William G. 2003. Problem‐Solving Courts: Therapeutic Jurisprudence. Michigan Bar Journal 82:2527.Google Scholar
Schneider, Elizabeth M. 1994. The Violence of Privacy. In The Public Nature of Private Violence, ed. Fineman, Martha Albertson and Mykitiuk, Roxanne, 3658. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Simon, Jonathan. 2000. Megan's Law: Crime and Democracy in Late Modern America. Law & Social Inquiry 25 (4): 1111–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, Jonathan. 2007. Governing Through Crime: How the War on Crime Transformed American Democracy and Created A Culture of Fear. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sirianni, Carmen. 2001. Civic Innovation in America: Community Empowerment, Public Policy and the Movement for Civic Renewal. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Sirianni, Carmen. 2005. The Civic Renewal Movement: Community‐Building and Democracy in the United States. Kettering, OH: Kettering Foundation Press.Google Scholar
Skocpol, Theda. 2003. Diminished Democracy: From Membership to Management in American Civic Life. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
Spinak, Jane. 2003. Community Courts and Community Justice: Commentary: Why Defenders Feel Defensive: The Defender's Role in Problem‐Solving Courts. American Criminal Law Review 40:1617–24.Google Scholar
Thompson, Jennifer. 2004. Who's Afraid of Judicial Activism? Reconceptualizing a Traditional Paradigm in the Context of Specialized Domestic Violence Court Programs. Maine Law Review 56:407–35.Google Scholar
Tjaden, Patricia, and Thoennes, Nancy. 2000. Extent and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Research Report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, US Department of Justice.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsai, Betsey. 2000. The Trend toward Specialized Domestic Violence Courts: Improvements on an Effective Innovation. Fordham Law Review 68:12851327.Google Scholar
Wacquant, Loic. 2001. Deadly Symbiosis: When Ghetto and Prison Meet and Mesh. In Mass Imprisonment: Social Causes and Consequences, ed. Garland, David, 82120. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wacquant, Loic. 2005. The New “Peculiar Institution”: On the Prison as Surrogate Ghetto. In Race, Crime and Justice: A Reader, ed. Gabbidon, Shaun L. and Greene, Helen Taylor. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Warchol, Glen. 1999. Domestic Violence Group Honors Four for Service. Salt Lake Tribune, December 15, B‐2.Google Scholar
Weber, Max. 1968. Economy and Society. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Wexler, David B., and Winick, Bruce J. 1996. Law in a Therapeutic Key: Developments in Therapeutic Jurisprudence. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
Winick, Bruce J. 1997. The Jurisprudence of Therapeutic Jurisprudence. Psychology, Public Policy and Law 3:184206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winick, Bruce J. 2000. Applying the Law Therapeutically in Domestic Violence Cases. University of Missouri—Kansas City School of Law Review 69:3392.Google Scholar
Winick, Bruce J. 2003. Special Series: Problem Solving Courts and Therapeutic Jurisprudence: Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Problem Solving Courts. Fordham Urban Law Journal 30:1055–90.Google Scholar
Yin, Robert. 2003a. Applications of Case Study Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Yin, Robert. 2003b. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 14
Total number of PDF views: 18 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 27th December 2018 - 21st April 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Beyond Therapy: Problem‐Solving Courts and the Deliberative Democratic State
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Beyond Therapy: Problem‐Solving Courts and the Deliberative Democratic State
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Beyond Therapy: Problem‐Solving Courts and the Deliberative Democratic State
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *