The traditional role of the judge is to determine who is guilty and who is innocent, who loses the case or who wins the case. Several judges were experimenting about 16 years ago with a more active technique, trying to get into the drug addicts lives and rehabilitate them and keep the jail undergrounded as well as the courtrooms. Therefore, judges are social workers and jurists are found in treatment courts. Judges in the law school should master the rules of a penal code, thus meant to be aware of the science of addiction and welfare programs bureaucracy
You find Judge Cyrulnik Miriam giving a choice in her domestic violence court in Brooklyn to a young man between classes of anger management and jail. According to Bruce J., a City health official, he lauded the way courts are carrying out its duties, stating that is the important new revolution (Rottman, 2016). He referred to the new revolution as therapeutic jurisprudence. Certain legal scholars have appealed for the judges, who are politically connected and middle class, forcing some of their attitudes and values on individuals from various backgrounds.
Some critics have difficulties not so much with the notion that these courts carry out these activities. Since these courts look like they are lenient, kind, critics but in practice they are harsh, having the assumption that the defendants are guiltier from the start and making it difficult for them to defend themselves. Problem-solving in recent years has spread throughout the country, according to the studies carried out for the Department of Justice, that has spent a lot of money on experimental programs (Ray, 2014). Nevertheless, there are significant differences. The judges have a sufficient amount of information regarding individuals who appeared before them. These clients have the chance of talking to the judges without using the lawyers.
The judges monitor this person with a court system of punishments and reward including jail time. The judges receive training in their specialty and may have a specialist like a psychologist. Courts dealing in drugs usually have the track record that is positive. The court gives their clients feedback on the daily basis so that they can know whether they are changing. The court found that those individuals who engage in drugs are more likely to be arrested than those who do not use the drugs. In many courts passing a judgment of arrest is not seen to be a right way since no person thinks of imprisonment as a correct way of punishment. However, in another court, a judge may have several options to weigh before making the final judgment.
The Emergence of Problem-Solving Courts
When governor devil Patrick introduced his budget, he came up with other solutions about court apart from education and health. The governor considered that the introduction of new courts that will assist in the rehabilitation of mentally disturbed individuals and drug addicts. According to the governor, it is a wise decision to allocate money to cater for the construction of new courts. The primary purpose of the court is not to convict and jail those who committed a crime but to consider other options that can better these individuals. The courts will come up with programs to educate and rehabilitate the defendants. There will be specialist training judges who will be in charge of the programs. The judges will make follow up and reward those who adhere to the rules and regulations set and punish those who dismiss the rules, and the punishment will include even jail.
In the scheme of $ 13.7 billion that the proposed, to some people it was like the money was directed to help some individuals (Berman, 2013). Though in a little since is wholesome good in terms legal and psychology. It is good to handle the offenders in the context of the problems that elicit the crime and not just a pure punishment.
Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Problem Solving Courts
In a few years, the court system has been relying on the traditional method of solving the cases that are brought before the court. The judges solely dependent on the evidence presented. The judges relied on the evidence to make the ruling and either to accuse the suspect and send him to jail or to pronounce him to be innocent due to lack of substantial evidence presented (Winick, 2014). However, there has been the introduction of new courts in the current judicial system that does not rely only on evidence but also on the physical, the mental and environmental condition of the offender. This helps the judge to understand why the offender committed the crime. The offender may be under the influence of drugs, or the offender might be suffering a specific condition that made him commit the crime. Therefore the judges will not just pass the judgment whether the offender is innocent or guilty, but they will find other ways to help the offender. The offender will be put under a program that will assist him to behave or improve his mental conditions.
One of the typical problem-solving courts that were introduced is the mental health court, that was started in Broward County, the States of Florida in 1997 (Hotel, 2016). The psychological court is a criminal court that was introduced to deal with individuals who were arrested for committing minor crimes who are suffering from mental illness not just criminality. These are a category of certain patients who are committed to mental hospitals periodically where they can be well taken off with psychotropic medication.
The research findings did not vary in any way. The conclusions basing on the three articles are somehow similar. The offenders in both scenarios, who committed minor crimes just to be jailed but be subjected to special programs to change their behavior, improve their mental conditions under proper medications.
Information such as date, the name of the presiding judge, attorney assignment docket, and type of the case available for the public to access either through the internet or trusted channels. The enhanced information in the problem-solving courts enables the offenders who committed minor crimes to know well when their case will be ruled and the name of the presiding judge. The information also allows the public to approach the courts and explain the condition and circumstances that the offender might be experiencing before the ruling is made.
In traditional courts, court staff and judges do not possess the knowledge of the challenges that the offenders go through such as mental illness, drug addiction, domestic violence and family dysfunction. Sometimes attorneys and judges argue that they have to stop gaining knowledge since it affects their objectivity but those individuals who have worked in the courtroom say that background knowledge is essential. Principles concerning an issue do not enhance bias but promote informed decision.
Staff and judges should have specific expertise for them to make informed choices; Certain information about the psychological and physical health of the litigants and defendants. An important ingredient of problem-solving is thorough intake of a survey to collect the information about the litigants. A typical assessment gathers information on employment, education, mental illness. This information can be used by the staff to make plans for the defendants and to assist the judge to make an informed decision.
Involvement of people in the judicial service system is crucial. People can assist in giving out their opinions, providing essential information and taking part in decision making (Eaton, 2015). They will view the system as open and trustworthy, hence will encourage less crime. Public participation also makes it possible for the judge to make a fair and accurate ruling because of the sufficient information that the public has provided.
The justice system leaders are encouraged to connect with people, agencies, government bodies, agencies outside the court system (Berman, 2015). This is prudent, and it will promote trust and working relations among the people, justice systems, and government agencies. The collaborative measures should be strengthened to improves service delivery and enhance performance and quality of work of the judicial system.
Using assessment instruments can connect the offenders to individually based services such as drug treatment, job training, mental health counseling, and safety planning where suitable. The justice system can assist in reducing recidivism, enhance confidence and improve the community. Links to services can assist the victims, increasing their safety, helping them to restore their lives.
Assessing the offenders will keep track of their behavior and progress. Assessments also will aid to suggest new ways of assisting the offenders.
The justice system can send a warning that any criminal behavior, minor crime is dangerous to the community safety, therefore, has severe effects. By instating on rigorous and regular and repercussions of non-compliance, the system can enhance the offender's accountability. It can also improve the service reports in regards to their work. The offenders would be aware of the consequences if they acted in contrast to the set laws and regulation., thus, reduction in criminal behavior and minor crime
The ongoing and active collection of data and data analysis, measuring process and results, benefits and costs, are essential tools for evaluation for continuous enhancing improvement. Public distribution of information can consist of importance to the public (Primer, 2016). Collection of data and analyzing will enables the court system to determine the progress of the offenders. The process is essential since it clearly shows off what needs to be improved and the things that ought to be retained.
In a nutshell, basing on the six principles of problem solving court; Outcomes, accountability, enhanced information, collaboration, individualized justice and community engagement, we can see that they offer some of the best solutions to the judicial service system The judicial service system can get access to much information, opinions of the public and the conditions of the offenders.
The judicial service system engaging the public in decision making is essential since it builds a sense of trustworthy. The offenders and the people are aware of the consequences of the event they commit the crime again. They become accountable for the actions so that they do not land in trouble. Also, the judges should not just arrest anyone because they have committed crimes but they should try to find the problem that made the offender to commit the crime.
Winick, B. J. (2014). Therapeutic jurisprudence and problem-solving courts. Fordham Urb. LJ, 30, 1055.
Rottman, D. (2016). Therapeutic jurisprudence and the emergence of problem-solving courts. National Institute of Justice Journal, 240, 12-19.
Berman, G.(2015). Problemsolving courts: A brief primer. Law & Policy, 23(2), 125-140.
Eaton, L. (2015). In problem-solving court, judges turn therapist. New York Times, 26, A1.
Hotel, D. (2016). Problem Solving court: Developing a Research Agenda to Meet Practice Needs.
Berman, G. (2013). Problemsolving courts: A brief primer. Law & Policy, 23(2), 125-140.
Ray, B. (2014). Problemsolving Courts. The encyclopedia of criminology and criminal justice, 1-5.
Primer, A. B. (2016). Problem-Solving Courts. Policy, 23(2).
Cite this page
Paper Example on Problem-Solving Courts. (2022, Jul 16). Retrieved from https://proessays.net/essays/paper-example-on-problem-solving-courts
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the ProEssays website, please click below to request its removal:
- Non-Criminalized Social Deviance Essay
- Whole Women's Health V. Hellerstedt Paper Example
- Debates in Criminal Justice Essay Example
- Legal Proceedings: Evidence, Ruling & Interpretation - Essay Sample
- Case Study on Frye v United States and Daubert's Case
- Essay Example on Gun Control: A Test of American Liberalism?
- Essay Sample on Writing Criminal Justice Reports for Fair Justice Delivery