Problem-Solving Courts - Coursework Example

Problem-Solving Courts This paper discusses the changes in the judicial system with evidence of nontraditional courts been established in the United States which have begun to deal with problems such as drug –addiction domestic violence, mental illness among others. It gives the six problem solving principles with relation to drug courts as developed by the Centre for Court Innovation. Additionally, the paper will focus on the different research findings in reference to drug courts. Introduction There has been a notable revolution in criminal justice with major changes in the traditional practice. One such growth has been of problem-oriented courts. A problem-oriented court is “a specialized court, but it has a distinctive approach to the quantity of cases that are brought before it. It seeks to use courts authority in addressing the fundamental problems of character litigants, the structural tribulations of the justice system and the social problem of the communities” (Belenko, 2001). Models of problem oriented courts include drug treatment courts, mental illness courts, domestic violence, and juvenile courts among others. All these problem oriented courts have a number of commonalties in their work. These courts ensure that they achieve substantial outcome to the victims, offenders and society at large, as well as seeking to reengineer what the government proposes in the judicial sections. In addition, the problem oriented courts go through judicial monitoring which involves going with the case throughout the post–adjudication process (Belenko, 2001). Of most important is that these courts also give a collaborative approach which involves working with the government and the non-profit associates such as the social service providers, the criminal justice agencies to help achieve goals. This is done by engaging the judges in non–traditional roles such as asking them to put across meetings or broker relations between the society and the social service providers. Drug treatment courts were the first project that the problem solving courts began with. A drug court is specifically designed to handle cases that are of a specified class of offenders with drug related issues. They have come up with a quality research body that talks about their work and the outcomes (Took, 2005). Related to the research that was carried out, the drug courts had a one crucial research that stated critically about the programs that the drug courts had come up with. These programs were nine in number. Drugs courts are the most popular and serve a population that is needy. They have received adverse support as well as providing intensive treatment to offenders who have had extensive histories of drug use and criminals justice contacts, cases of failure in previous drug treatments and high charges of health and social problems (Berman, et al 2002). The court directive treatment programs result in higher maintenance rates with the estimated national average being one year maintenance for any obligatory treatment varying from thirty to sixty percent for around three months. The program also involves a longer participants’ stay in treatment which leads to better outcomes. In fact, the research showed that people who were said to drop out of treatment were less likely to be rearrested if they had stayed in the program for about ninety days. This finding further discusses the importance of looking beyond what happens to graduates of drug courts. Lower rates of recidivism demonstrated that offenders in drug courts posed a condensed risk to public safety during the multi–year period when they were under the supervision by the courts (Belenko, 2001). In addition to this, the program suggests that the continuous checks, sanctions for the graduated offenders and ample rewards could help offenders in avoiding rearrest. Besides, the researchers looked at the effects of penalties in terms of whether the sanctions would be enforced, how harsh it would be as well as how quick the sanction would be imposed. However, almost all studies showed that there was significant savings to the criminal justice when drug courts were put into practice. However, more research is needed to resolve on the features of drug courts (Berman, et al 2002). On the contrary, there has been variation in researches making it complex to build a standard conclusion on this kind of model. Most of the researches fail to analyze recidivism during and after the program participation. Other post program effects have also received lesser attention (Belenko, 2001). Additionally, studies lack to follow the progress and failure of the defendant who might not make the grade from the drug courts programs which leads to delayed response from the courts. More research is also important in assessing the alteration of the drug court model, especially on the family treatment courts and mental courts which to extent needs the principles of the drug courts. Researchers might face incredible challenges while they try to collect more information about problem solving courts, particularly those of drug courts who have left the programs for reasons such as failure to graduate of mere drop outs (Castro, et al., 2010). In this regard, if the problem solving courts have the hope of thriving further they must be able to move from experimentation to institutionalization of their work in order to have answers to most of their critics and this is achievable only if thorough, independent research that focus more on questions of the critics, especially the policy makers and practitioners (Belenko, 2001). Principles of problem solving and how they are related to drug courts The biggest challenge that has been present is that the Centre for Court Innovation is trying to define the principles of problem solving justice that incorporates all the initiatives that are present. The main aim of problem solving models is to reflect on different assumptions about rehabilitation and look for ways to return offenders of drug courts as productive members of the society (Berman, et al 2002). One principle that is used in the drug courts is the principle of enhanced information. It emphasizes on the need to have better staff collectively with better information through training so as to improve the decision making by judges and other judicial officials. Moreover, it incorporates the need to gather high quality information, with the assistance of technology, breed with confidentiality to the practitioner so as to enable them make ample decision regarding the offenders especially through supervision and services that are rendered to them. Other tools that are used to enhance information include meetings, computers and educational trainings (Took, 2005). Another principle that is used in drug courts is the principle of community engagement. This is where the citizens and the entire community is actively occupied in the judicial processes as this helps the justice system to identify, prioritize and solve problems all around the trust that they have built from the society as a whole. Moreover, the trust that is two sided helps the society feel safer to cooperate with the justice system in pursuit of justice in positions like witnesses or even jury members. Collaboration is crucial in drug courts as it incorporate the government agencies and community organizations in improving public safety (Took, 2005). This is especially so by bringing together the justice partners like the judges and other stalk holders like the service providers, victim groups among others with the aim of improving interagency communication and encouraging more trust between the citizens and the government, hence, nurturing new response to solving problems (Leukefeld. et al,2011). For example, it creates new punishment options like the community service which is meant to give back to the society for the evils that have been committed by mandating social services such as health counseling for prostitutes and drug treatment for addicts. Individualized justice is present in the drug courts where the justice system can be use to connect to individual tailored community base service like drug treatment where and when suitable (Castro, et al., 2010). By doing so, the justice system helps reduce recidivism, improve the safety of the community and enhance confidence in the justice system. This further helps in supporting victims, improving their confidence and building their lives again (Berman, et al 2002). Accountability is crucial in drug courts as it is exercised by the criminal justice system to elucidate that all criminal behavior, even of the lowest quality of life has a great impact in the society’s safety (Took, 2005). Through insisting on the regular and accurate observance monitoring and clear consequences for non compliance, the liability of the offender is improved by the justice system. It also improves the liability of the service providers as they are supposed to give back to the justice system the regular reports of their work with participants (Berman, et al 2002). In drug court, outcome is also a principle that is wanting as it helps in the vigorous and continuing collection and analysis of data, through measuring the outcomes and process, the cost and benefits as they play an important role in effectiveness of operations and the encourages continues improvement of the services (Jay, 1987). Public dissemination of this information is also a valuable symbol of public liability. This principle is used to monitor the participants’ school attendance and their grades as it tries to determine what the participants demographic are associated with program success (Berman, et al 2002). Conclusion The impact of problem solving courts has been felt especially in the United States, thus, solving the cases in a more specialized way, with qualified practitioners, hence, reducing the backlog of cases that has prevailed in most countries and states. Moreover, offenders and victims of such cases can closely be monitored as compared to when cases were put together in general courts. This has led to great reforms in the judicial system. References Belenko, S. (2001). Research on Drug Courts: A Critical Review. Columbia: Columbia University. Berman, G. & Gulicky, A. (2002). Just the (Unwieldy, Hard to Gether, but Nonetheless Essential) Facts, Ma’am: What We Know and Don’t Know About Problem-Solving Courts. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 30, 1027-1053. Castro, A. et al. (2010). A testable theory of problem solving courts: Avoiding past empirical and legal failures. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 33: 417– 427. Jay. H. (1987). Problem-solving therapy (2nd ed.). San Francisco: The Jossey-Bass social and behavioral science series. Leukefeld, C. et al. (2011). Handbook of evidence-based substance abuse treatment in criminal justice settings: New York: Springer. Took, G. (2005). Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Drug Courts: Hybrid Justice and Its Implications For modern Penalty. Internet Journal of Criminology, 2: 1-55. Read More