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
UNEQUAL PARTNERS? Women solicitors' experiences of workplace discrimination, flexibility and success in Queensland.
1 UNEQUAL PARTNERS? – Solicitors' experiences of workplace discrimination, flexibility and success in Queensland.
Drug treatment and testing orders: Final evaluation report--Home Office research study 212: (452722008-001)
The Home Office Research Studies are reports on research undertaken by or on behalf of the Home Office. They cover the range of subjects for which the Home Secretary has responsibility. Titles in the series are listed at the back of this report (copies are available from the address on the back cover). Other publications produced by the Research, RDS is part of the Home Office. The Home Office's purpose is to build a safe, just and tolerant society in which the rights and responsibilities of individuals, families and communities are properly balanced and the protection and security of the public are maintained. RDS is also a part of the Government Statistical Service (GSS). One of the GSS aims is to inform Parliament and the citizen about the state of the nation and provide a window on the work and performance of government, allowing the impact of government policies and actions to be assessed. Therefore-Research Development and Statistics Directorate exists to improve policy making, decision taking and practice in support of the Home Office purpose and aims, to provide the public and Parliament with information necessary for informed debate and to publish information for future use. " The views expressed in this report are those of the authors, not necessarily those of the Home Office (nor do they reflect Government policy). " First published 2000 Application for reproduction should be made to the Foreword Drug Treatment and Testing Orders (DTTOs) were introduced as a new community sentence under the Crime and Disorder Act, 1998. The orders were established in response to growing evidence of the link between problem drug use and persistent acquisitive offending. Orders are targeted at serious drug misusing offenders aged 16 and over, with the dual aim of treating their drug use in order to reduce the amount of crime committed to fund a drug habit. The order requires the offenders to undergo regular urine tests and, unique to community sentences, court reviews to monitor progress. This report presents findings from an 18-month evaluation conducted by South Bank University, on behalf of the Home Office, in three pilot areas-Gloucestershire, Liverpool and Croydon. Results include an evaluation of the type of offenders sentenced to a DTTO, how well they met the treatment, testing and review elements of the order, and how successful the pilot projects were in reducing their drug use and related offending. The evaluation also makes …