The Problem of Problem-Solving Courts

Collins, Erin R.

doi:10.2139/ssrn.3492003

Cited by 6 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Bearing in mind the results of the studies above and the generally growing interest in the practice of drug courts, in the last years the United States has had an expansion of these O N L I N E F I R S T courts. Even the President's Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis recommended in 2017 that every federal district court should establish a drug court and that the Department of Justice "urges states to establish drug courts in every county" (Collins, 2021(Collins, : 1575(Collins, -1576. The adoption of drug courts in the Anglo-Saxon legal region has seen significant variation and growth, with Australia establishing numerous courts, each shaped by local agents and practices (Schaefer & Beriman, 2019: 346).…”

Section: Drug Courtsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…He argues that while problem-solving courts aim to address underlying issues such as addiction or mental health problems, they must not compromise on the fundamental legal rights of defendants. Collins (2021) further explores this tension, highlighting the potential risks of undermining traditional legal safeguards in the pursuit of therapeutic goals. Collins (2021) points out that the unique nature of these courts could lead to a dilution of standard legal procedures designed to protect defendants' rights.…”

Section: Problem-solving Courts and The Fundamental Rights Of The Def...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Problem-solving courts in comparative law: Combination of therapy and responsibility

Tešović

2024

Nauka bezbednost policija

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines the innovative approach of problem-solving courts within the framework of comparative law, emphasizing the integration of therapeutic jurisprudence and individual criminal responsibility. By analysing various models from different jurisdictions, the study highlights how these courts effectively address underlying issues in criminal behaviour, such as substance abuse and mental health problems, through tailored interventions. The research draws on a comparative analysis to explore the effectiveness of these courts in reducing recidivism, enhancing offender rehabilitation, and promoting social reintegration. The paper also discusses the challenges and potential of this approach in balancing the goals of therapy and legal accountability. Through a comprehensive review of judicial and policy frameworks, this study provides valuable insights into the evolving role of the judiciary in addressing complex social issues and the potential of problem-solving courts as a transformative tool in the criminal justice system.

show abstract

Section: Drug Courtsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Problem-solving Courts and The Fundamental Rights Of The Def...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Problem-solving courts in comparative law: Combination of therapy and responsibility

Tešović

2024

Nauka bezbednost policija

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Specialized courts, CCs among them, have faced criticism from various directions, including concerns about defendants' due process rights (Lane 2002;Meekins 2007;Miller 2009), net-widening (Hoffman 1999), cherry-picking defendants (Collins 2020), and overusing scarce treatment resources (Seltzer 2005). Critics have also argued that, despite the encouraging results, these courts failed to make a sea change in the carceral state.…”

Section: Evaluating the Effectiveness Of Community Courtsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Many Shades of Success: Bottom-up Indicators of Individual Success in Community Courts

Dancig-Rosenberg,

Gal

2023

Law Soc. Inq.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study challenges the conventional approach to the appropriate indicators of individual success in community courts (CCs) by exploring the different meanings that CC professionals ascribe to the term “success.” CCs conduct a non-adversarial process in which team members collaborate to provide a comprehensive rehabilitative intervention for recidivist participants. We conducted fifty-three in-depth interviews with CC personnel between 2016 and 2020. According to the interviewees, standard evaluation measures such as program completion, reduced recidivism, and systemic reduction of incarceration are necessary for evaluating these courts. Yet individual success is relative, subjective, multidimensional, and must be understood as a continuum. Therefore, it should also be measured by looking at significant processes of change that participants have undergone in various aspects of their lives. Study findings can be translated into measurable well-being indicators, moving the “what works” discourse forward to include more nuanced and diverse manifestations of success in studies evaluating specialized courts.

show abstract

“…The judge often demonstrates procedural justice but research has also linked it to the overall treatment court process ( Dollar et al, 2018 ; Wales et al, 2010 ). However, the treatment court model has not been without criticism, specifically its reproduction of punitive measures as is evident through the use of coercive or mandated treatment ( Ahlin & Douds, 2019 ; Collins, 2019 ), restrictive eligibility requirements ( Marlowe et al, 2016 ), due process violations ( Quinn, 2000 ), and a lack of evidence-based medicine ( Andraka-Christou, 2017 ). Clients who do not successfully complete treatment (i.e., “graduate”) are typically returned to the court for sentencing, sometimes with longer durations than had the client never entered the treatment court ( Gottfredson & Exum, 2002 ; Rempel et al, 2004 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%