Courting the community: Organizational flexibility and community courts

Abstract

This article examines how a community court in the United States framed its mission to a diverse population of stakeholders. Drawing from 11 months of ethnographic data, I show how community courts' embrace of both punitive and therapeutic goals help the courts appeal to a variety of audiences. I argue that by adopting a flexible mission which allows for both punishment and treatment, community courts are better able to create and maintain organizational legitimacy. This article not only adds to the literature on the flexibility of punishment logics, but it also brings a new focus by considering the organizational utility of mutable penal goals.

Homeless Group Representation in Detroit’s Problem-Solving Court

“…Despite their individualized focus, Tiger describes drug courts as oriented toward public safety, justifying expansion of the court’s interest into numerous aspects of the client’s life “[b]ecause the addict’s behavior also affects other people, conceptualized as ‘the community’” (2012, 6). Similarly, in community courts, offenders often are tasked with “pay[ing] back” the community, defined as residents and stakeholders other than the defendant (Zozula 2018, 229). Community courts are sometimes criticized as expanding “broken windows” approaches to punishment of low-level crimes or deterring defendants from pursuing other means of resolution (Zozula 2018, 229–30).…”

“…Similarly, in community courts, offenders often are tasked with “pay[ing] back” the community, defined as residents and stakeholders other than the defendant (Zozula 2018, 229). Community courts are sometimes criticized as expanding “broken windows” approaches to punishment of low-level crimes or deterring defendants from pursuing other means of resolution (Zozula 2018, 229–30). This perspective lacks recognition that a defendant’s ongoing entanglement with the criminal justice system—especially for those who have been accused and/or convicted for crimes of poverty—also has negative consequences for the broader community.…”

“…Many specialty court processes require clients to return to the court several times—even monthly—prior to dismissal (Buenaventura 2018, 14; Nolan 2001, 94–95). As clients complete court-supervised programs, courts may employ “carrots and sticks” tactics, where failure to execute the treatment plan subjects the participant to more penalties, sometimes including jail time, than if they had not chosen diversion (Nolan 2001, 95; Zozula 2018, 235). Homeless courts, in contrast, employ a “pure dismissal” model, where clients only appear before a judge after having completed an action plan based on the defendant’s specific circumstances.…”

Can Rehabilitation Work in Military Prison? A Theoretical Framework Based on the Israeli Case

“…The community court also addresses social issues involving crime, such as psychoactive substance abuse, mental disturbances, and anger management (Zozula, 2018). There are a number of typical features of the community court (Lee et al, 2013).…”