Australian Magistrates, Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Social Change
Therapeutic jurisprudence (TJ) is an orientation to decision-making that is attracting interest amongst some judicial officers and courts. A TJ approach emphasises the quality of the interaction between judicial officers and the individuals who appear before them, which is enhanced by direct engagement, empathy and communication. Drawing on a national survey of Australian magistrates, this paper shows that many magistrates are concerned to make a difference to the operation of the courts and those who use them. Magistrates identify many of the qualities and values associated with a TJ approach as important aspects of their work or as the characteristics of a good magistrate, regardless of whether they explicitly or consciously adopt a TJ orientation. There is also some evidence that the capacity to interact positively with citizens is a source of job satisfaction for some magistrates. However, the limited capacity in their current position to contribute to change in the court system is a source of dissatisfaction for many magistrates. Therapeutic jurisprudence (TJ) is an orientation to decision-making that is attracting interest amongst judicial officers, especially those in the lower courts, both in Australia and overseas. A TJ approach focuses on the quality of the interaction between judicial officers and the individuals who appear before them, with an emphasis on direct engagement, empathy and communication. The core idea is that legal processes have the potential for positive impact on the physical and psychological well being of participants, perhaps ultimately contributing to progressive social change. This paper examines the TJ implications in individual magistrates‟ orientation to their work in two ways. First, drawing on a national survey of Australian
Design and Implementation of Australia's First Drug Court
Abstract In 1999 the New South Wales government implemented an evaluated trial of the first drug court in Australia. This paper outlines the initial design and legislative framework of the Court, and the Court's operation over the first six months. For the benefit of policymakers and researchers, challenges that arose in the initial implementation and evaluation process are outlined. Although the Court is based on a North American model, some aspects of the court proved a challenge in the Australian context (such as the development of rewards and sanctions). Difficulties in implementation are outlined, including differences in orientation of a health and welfare perspective compared to a criminal justice perspective and the importance of adequate IT resources for evaluation purposes and for a ‘paperless’ court. In outlining these challenges this article concentrates on the initial implementation phase of a new policy initiative. Long-term evaluation of the project will determine the true success of the Court.
Research on Drug Courts: a Critical Review I Research on Drug Courts: a Critical Review 2001 Update Research on Drug Courts: a Critical Review 2001 Update Article Summaries
This is a critical review of 37 published and unpublished evaluations of drug courts (including seven juvenile drug courts, one DUI court, and one family drug court) produced between 1999 and April 2001. The conclusions drawn from this research are generally consistent with those of previous reviews published by the author in June 1998 and December 1999. Drug courts have achieved considerable local support and have provided intensive, long-term treatment services to offenders with long histories of drug use and criminal justice contacts, previous treatment failures, and high rates of health and social problems. Program completion rates are generally consistent with previous findings, with an average of 47% of participants graduating. Drug use and criminal activity are relatively reduced while participants are in the program. Less clear are the long-term post-program impacts of drug courts on recidivism and other outcomes. In this critical review of drug court research, four of the six studies that examined one-year post-program recidivism found a reduction, but the size of the reduction varied across courts. None of the studies reported post-program drug use, employment, or other outcomes for all drug court participants, so these impacts remain largely unknown. Three studies used random assignment to drug court or control conditions and all 2001 Update 2 found a reduction in recidivism for the drug court participants; however, none of these studies distinguished between in-program and post-program rearrests, and sample sizes were small in two of the studies. Several studies that examined program costs found that average per-client drug court costs are lower than standard processing, primarily due to reduced incarceration. However, straight diversion may be less expensive and intrusive for low-risk offenders and achieve similar outcomes as drug courts. This review suggests a continuing need for better precision in describing data sources, measures, and time frames for data collection. Data quality and information systems problems continue to affect the quality and utility of drug court evaluations. Despite the importance of looking inside the " black box " of drug court treatment, relatively few evaluations included data on program services, either because of lack of data or because service delivery was not included in the evaluation design. Findings from several evaluations suggest that drug court impacts may fluctuate over time, indicating the importance of multi-year or replication studies to gauge the long-term impacts of drug courts. Finally, research on juvenile and family drug courts is still in its …