Therapeutic Jurisprudence: A New Approach to Mental Health Law

Wexler, David; Schopp, Robert F.

doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-4038-7_18

Cited by 57 publications

(67 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The preceding exploration of judicial involvement in the Scottish Drug Courts highlights how, even if not explicitly so, sentencers were adopting approaches and practices consistent with therapeutic jurisprudence (Wexler and Winick, 1992). In particular, interactions between offenders and the bench were characterised by meaningful exchanges aimed at supporting and encouraging offenders in the process of change within a climate of trust and an 'ethic of care' (Winick and Wexler, 2003).…”

Section: Why Does Judicial Involvement Matter?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Therapeutic jurisprudence and procedural justice in Scottish Drug Courts

McIvor

2009

Criminology & Criminal Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The United Kingdom, in common with other western jurisdictions, has in recent years sought to develop more effective ways of responding to drug related crime. Although the link between drug use and crime is complex, it is recognised that much acquisitive crime in the UK occurs through the need for individuals with drug problems to obtain the financial resources necessary to maintain a regular supply of drugs. Previous legislative endeavours had focused primarily upon attempting to reduce the supply of illicit substances through increasingly severe sanctions for those convicted of drug dealing. However, by the late 1990s policy attention shifted towards demand reduction through the provision of drug treatment to individuals whose offending was related to the misuse of drugs. The rationale was that addressing drug misuse would, in turn, result in reduced levels of crime, since individuals would no longer need to commit offences to support their drug habits. The criminal justice system was perceived as a suitable route into treatment for individuals with drug problems in view of emerging research findings that indicated that mandated treatment could be as effective as treatment accessed voluntarily (Hough, 1996 and, more recently, McSweeney et al, 2006. Furthermore, evidence was emerging from the United States that Drug Courts, first introduced in 1989 and subsequently established across the country, were showing promise in reducing problematic drug use and drug-related crime (Belenko, 1998). 2Although courts in the UK already had the option of requiring offenders to seek treatment for their drug problems as a condition of probation, in practice there were often lengthy waiting lists. Unable to access treatment at the start of their orders, probationers were likely to continue offending, to breach their orders and to face a custodial sentence as a consequence. Through the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act, provision was made for the introduction of Drug Treatment and Testing Orders (DTTOs) across the UK. DTTOs, which drew upon the US Drug Court model, differed from existing community penalties in a number of important respects. First, they allowed for the regular drug testing of offenders as a requirement of the court. Second, they emphasised the case management role of the supervising officer, who would be responsible for co-ordinating service provision rather than directly providing services. Third, and perhaps most significantly, they included provision for sentencers to take an active role in reviewing the progress of offenders on orders by bringing them back to court on a regular basis (or, alternatively, scrutinising progress through paper-based reviews).Pilot DTTO schemes were introduced in England in 1998 in three pilot sites, with varying degrees of success (Turnbull et al., 2000). Revocation rates differed markedly from 28 per cent in one site to 60 per cent in another and a number of issues were identified that needed to be addressed prior to any national rollout of orders. A subsequent analysis of recidivis...

show abstract

Section: Why Does Judicial Involvement Matter?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Therapeutic jurisprudence and procedural justice in Scottish Drug Courts

McIvor

2009

Criminology & Criminal Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Under the rubric of therapeutic jurisprudence, a more formal model of intensive court-based supervision, referred to as drug-treatment courts, emerged in the 1990s (Hora et al 1999;Senjo and Leip 2001;Slobogin 1995;Wexler and Winick 1991). A number of studies have found that drug-treatment court participation reduces recidivism rates (Finigan 1998;Goldkamp and Weiland 1993;Gottfredson and Exum 2002;Harrell and Roman 2001;Peters and Murrin 2000;Wilson et al 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Simulated evidence on the prospects of treating more drug-involved offenders

Bhati

Roman

2010

J Exp Criminol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite a growing consensus among scholars that substance abuse treatment is effective at reducing offending, strict eligibility rules and budgetary considerations greatly limit the impact that current models of therapeutic jurisprudence can have on public safety in the United States. A question of pressing importance for U.S. drug policy is whether it is beneficial to expand application of this model to treat every offender in need and, if so, whether a set of evidence-based, going-to-scale strategies can be developed to prioritize participation. We use evidence from several sources to construct a synthetic dataset for answering the question: What are the benefits we can reasonably expect by expanding treatment to drug-involved offenders? We combine information from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) and the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program to estimate the likelihood of various arrestee profiles having drug addiction or dependence problems. We use the same sources to also develop prevalence estimates of these profiles among arrestees nationally. We use information in the Drug Abuse Treatment Outcome Study (DATOS) to compute expected crimereducing benefits of treating various types of drug-involved offenders under different treatment modalities. We find that annually nearly 1.5 million (probably guilty) arrestees in the U.S. are at risk of abuse or dependence and that treatment alone could avert several million crimes that these individuals would otherwise commit. Results vary by treatment modality and arrestee traits and those results are described herein.

show abstract

“…ship in this area does lead to the interpretation of questions of law from a normative and characteristically psychological perspective (e.g., Melton, 1988Melton, , 1990Melton, , 1992Small, this issue;Wexler, 1990;Wexler & Schopp, 1992;Wexler & Winick, 1991). Typically, authors discuss how legal decisions can be made to agree with the values embodied in the psychological enterprise (e.g., Melton, 1990Melton, , 1992Wexler, 1990;Wexler & Schopp, 1992) and the types of research that contributes to that objective (Melton, 1988;Melton & Saks, 1985;Wexler, 1990, this issue;Wexler & Schopp, 1992).…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Typically, authors discuss how legal decisions can be made to agree with the values embodied in the psychological enterprise (e.g., Melton, 1990Melton, , 1992Wexler, 1990;Wexler & Schopp, 1992) and the types of research that contributes to that objective (Melton, 1988;Melton & Saks, 1985;Wexler, 1990, this issue;Wexler & Schopp, 1992).…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Psychological jurisprudence and the information processing paradigm

Wiener¹,

Watts²,

Stolle³

1993

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this article is to further recent work in the psychology of jurisprudence. After summarizing the value positions that are central to a jurisprudence that emphasizes the role of law in the everyday lives of individuals, we examine the interaction between the tenets ofthat philosophy and the paradigmatic content of psycholegal research. We propose that one dominant perspective, information processing, assumes that legal actors are imperfect processors of social information and proceeds to document biases and propose ways for the law to minimize shortcomings in human cognition. After summarizing the emerging theory of psychological jurisprudence, we discuss the information processing paradigm in psychology and law, illustrating its contributions with three recent studies. Next, we present an empirical analysis of abstracts from the last 5 years of empirical research to demonstrate that there is a representative body of information processing research in psychology and law. Following this is an in-depth assessment of a sample of cognitive and social cognitive studies, detailing the scientific and normative issues that make up this literature. Finally, we conclude with some recommendations for jurisprudential theorists and psycholegal researchers which will integrate the philosophy of psychology and law with its empirical underpinnings.Accompanying the rapid increase in psychology's interest in the law over the last decade has been an interest in the philosophic underpinnings of psycholegal scholarship and practice. Growing out of psychologists' attempts to influence legal process in and out of court (see, e.g., Monahan & Walker, 1990) is the beginning of a debate concerning the appropriate role of psychology in the law. While it may be premature to label t h i s debate a discussion of psycholegal jurisprudence, the scholar-

show abstract

Therapeutic Jurisprudence: A New Approach to Mental Health Law

Cited by 57 publications

References 40 publications

Therapeutic jurisprudence and procedural justice in Scottish Drug Courts

Therapeutic jurisprudence and procedural justice in Scottish Drug Courts

Simulated evidence on the prospects of treating more drug-involved offenders

Psychological jurisprudence and the information processing paradigm

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About