What's So Special about Specialized Courts? The State and Social Change in Salt Lake City's Domestic Violence Court

Abstract

The nationwide growth in specialized or problem‐solving courts, including drug courts, community courts, mental health courts, and domestic violence courts, among others, raises questions about the role of the state with respect to social change. According to social control theories of the state, especially theories of technocratic or rationalized justice, law is increasingly about efficiency, speed, and effectiveness. Specialized courts, however, take on a social problem approach to crime, seeking to address crime's “root causes” within the individual, the society, and the larger culture in ways more characteristic of social movements. Are specialized courts about social control or social change? This study examines state action in a specialized court in domestic violence in order to examine this question. I focus on a domestic violence court that arose in February 1997 and four years later employed full‐time judges, prosecuting and defense attorneys, and numerous other staff to handle all misdemeanor domestic violence cases in Salt Lake County, Utah. I ask how legal, political, and community officials justify the court and its operation in order to examine some important issues about the role of the state and social change. Ultimately, I suggest that my findings about the complementary roles of social control and social change within domestic violence courts have implications not only for critical theories of technocratic justice and for the battered women's movement but also for democratic theories of the state.

The Effects of Referral Source Supervision

“…Specialized courts aim to improve the judicial response to DV by utilizing trained and dedicated judges and prosecutors to process the cases as well as by incorporating programs and personnel of community agencies that serve victims and offenders in the courtroom process (Coulter et al, 2005;Gover et al, 2007;Mirchandani, 2005). The primary focus of these courts tends to be a "fusion between rehabilitation and punishment" (Babcock, Green, & Robbie, 2004, p. 1024, where sentencing predominantly combines legal sanctions with mandated participation in batterer intervention programs (BIPs; Gover et al, 2007;Labriola et al, 2007).…”

Understanding Decision-Making in Specialized Domestic Violence Courts

“…In support of their applicability in DV courts, it should be noted that despite the inherent structure in specialized DV courts, they still operate under the same concerns about avoiding uncertainty while encouraging efficiency and speedy case processing (Mirchandani, 2005). This technocratic justice approach is certainly characteristic of traditional courts as criminal court caseloads have continued to rise and concerns about processing cases have increased.…”

“…It also reflects an important facet of many specialized DV courts' philosophies (Davis, Smith, & Rabbitt, 2001;Eckberg & Podkopacz, 2002). As noted by Mirchandani (2005), efficient and effective management of DV cases is vital in light of concerns about victims' safety.…”

What Do Clients Achieve in Drug/DUI Court? Examining Intended and Unintended Outcomes

“…While these few exceptions exist, it is surprising that drug/DUI court clients' stories and experiences are largely left out and remain unexamined. It is also worth noting that a number of qualitative studies have been conducted in other problem-solving courts such as prostitution programs (e.g., Shdaimah and Bailey-Kloch 2014;Shdaimah and Wiechelt 2012;Wahab 2005Wahab , 2006, mental health programs (e.g., Castellano 2011), and domestic violence programs (e.g., Mirchandani 2005). All these studies emphasized the importance of including clients' voices and experiences in critical examination of such problem-solving programs.…”