Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Therapeutic Jurisprudence

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Capacity Assessment and the Law

  • 835 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter introduces the doctrine of therapeutic jurisprudence as an innovative lens through which to explore capacity assessments in the testamentary and substitute decision-making context. The attraction of therapeutic jurisprudence is the doctrine’s focus on the law and legal actors not having a negative, or anti-therapeutic, impact on the lives of people who come into contact with legal systems and processes. The doctrine itself is explained in the chapter, including the definitional difficulties which have been identified. Application of the doctrine’s principles relevant to the context specific assessment of capacity are then undertaken. Exploring the assessment of capacity through a novel lens such as therapeutic jurisprudence facilitates the development of potential new outcomes, ultimately, with a view to progressing the capacity assessment dialogue. Therapeutic jurisprudence is not without its critics and these critiques are also discussed in determining the applicability of these principles to the estate planning setting.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Australian Law Reform Commission (2014), p. 13. See also Tyler TR (1996), pp. 9–11; Kapp MB (2003), p. 142.

  2. 2.

    Slobogin C (1995), p. 193; Freckelton I (2008), pp. 580–581.

  3. 3.

    Finkelman D and Grisso T (1996), p. 588.

  4. 4.

    Winick BJ (1997), p. 200.

  5. 5.

    Ibid 184. See also Perlin ML (2003), p. 171–175.

  6. 6.

    For example, Champine PR (2003), p. 177.

  7. 7.

    Winick BJ (1996–1997), p. 58.

  8. 8.

    Winick BJ (1996a), pp. 54–55.

  9. 9.

    Kapp MB (2003), p. 145.

  10. 10.

    Freckelton I (2008), p. 576.

  11. 11.

    Winick BJ (1997), p. 192.

  12. 12.

    Perlin ML (2003), pp. 1047–1048; Wexler DB (1995), p. 231. See also Winick BJ (1997), p. 185; Slobogin C (1995), p. 194.

  13. 13.

    Freiberg A (2003), p. 8; Winick BJ (1997), p. 185; Kapp MB (2003), pp. 4–5.

  14. 14.

    Hall MA (2002–2003), pp. 466–467; Freckelton I (2008), p. 576; Freiberg A (2003), p. 8.

  15. 15.

    Mark A Hall, ‘Law, Medicine, and Trust’ (2002–2003), p. 55 Stanford Law Review 463, 467.

  16. 16.

    Wexler DB (1995), p. 221.

  17. 17.

    Ibid.

  18. 18.

    Ibid.

  19. 19.

    Wexler DB (1995), p. 222; Slobogin C (1995), p. 196.

  20. 20.

    Perlin ML (1992–1993), p. 669; See also Ellis HS (2003), p. 195.

  21. 21.

    Ellis HS (2003), p. 200.

  22. 22.

    Ibid.

  23. 23.

    Ibid.

  24. 24.

    Perlin ML (2003), pp. 171–172.

  25. 25.

    Perlin M (2000), pp. 226–227. See also Ellis HS (2003), p. 195.

  26. 26.

    Perlin ML (1992–1993), p. 635.

  27. 27.

    Winick BJ (1996–1997), p. 57; Wexler DB (1995), p. 223.

  28. 28.

    Perlin ML (2000), p. 1032.

  29. 29.

    Winick BJ (1996–1997), p. 66.

  30. 30.

    Winick BJ (1996a), p. 18.

  31. 31.

    Ibid 19–20.

  32. 32.

    Ibid 20. See also Carney T (1995), p. 517.

  33. 33.

    Winick BJ (1996a), p. 20.

  34. 34.

    Perlin ML (1996), p. 63.

  35. 35.

    Moye J and Marson DC (2007), p. 8. See also Moye J et al. (2013), pp. 161–162.

  36. 36.

    Darzins P et al. (2000), p. 1.

  37. 37.

    Schopp RF (1996), pp. 727–728; Winick BJ (1996a), pp. 18–19.

  38. 38.

    Winick BJ (1996a), p. 19.

  39. 39.

    Winick BJ (1991), p. 17.

  40. 40.

    Ibid.

  41. 41.

    Ibid 18.

  42. 42.

    Ibid 51.

  43. 43.

    Cockerill J et al. (2005), p. 28.

  44. 44.

    Parker M (2004), p. 485.

  45. 45.

    Winick BJ (1996a), p. 21.

  46. 46.

    Ibid 22–23.

  47. 47.

    Ibid 24.

  48. 48.

    Ibid 24–25.

  49. 49.

    Ibid 26.

  50. 50.

    Ibid 26–27, 35.

  51. 51.

    Ibid 28.

  52. 52.

    Ibid 29.

  53. 53.

    Ibid.

  54. 54.

    Ibid 30, 32.

  55. 55.

    Ibid 33.

  56. 56.

    Ibid 36.

  57. 57.

    Ibid 36–37.

  58. 58.

    Ibid 37.

  59. 59.

    Ibid 46.

  60. 60.

    Ibid.

  61. 61.

    Schopp RF (1996), pp. 727–728.

  62. 62.

    Ibid.

  63. 63.

    Attorney General’s Department of New South Wales (2008), p. 27.

  64. 64.

    Tyler TR (1996), p. 9.

  65. 65.

    Hall MA (2002–2003), p. 469.

  66. 66.

    Ibid.

  67. 67.

    Ibid 472.

  68. 68.

    Ibid 478.

  69. 69.

    Winick BJ (1998), p. 909.

  70. 70.

    Ibid.

  71. 71.

    Tyler TR (1996), p. 3.

  72. 72.

    Ibid.

  73. 73.

    Cockerill J et al. (2005), p. 49.

  74. 74.

    Tyler TR (1996), p. 5.

  75. 75.

    Ellis HS (2003), p. 195.

  76. 76.

    Perlin ML (2000), p. 1015.

  77. 77.

    Winick BJ (1997), p. 204; Perlin ML (2000), p. 1028.

  78. 78.

    Slobogin C (1995), p. 195.

  79. 79.

    Ibid 218.

  80. 80.

    Magner E (1998), p. 127.

  81. 81.

    Winick BJ (1997), p. 204.

  82. 82.

    Slobogin, C (1995), p. 201.

  83. 83.

    Ibid 218.

  84. 84.

    Ibid.

  85. 85.

    Ibid.

  86. 86.

    Wexler DB (1995), pp. 223–224.

  87. 87.

    Winick BJ (1997), p. 192.

  88. 88.

    Wexler DB (1995), p. 221.

  89. 89.

    Ibid 224.

  90. 90.

    Ibid.

  91. 91.

    Ibid 206.

  92. 92.

    Slobogin C (1995), p. 200.

  93. 93.

    Ibid 201.

  94. 94.

    Ibid 218.

  95. 95.

    Small MA (1993), p. 699.

  96. 96.

    Ibid.

  97. 97.

    Wexler DB (1995), p. 227.

  98. 98.

    Ibid.

  99. 99.

    Ibid 227. See also Winick BJ (1997), p. 190.

  100. 100.

    Wexler DB (1995), p. 227.

  101. 101.

    Slobogin C (1995), p. 201.

  102. 102.

    Ibid 202.

  103. 103.

    Ibid 204.

  104. 104.

    Ibid 204, 218.

  105. 105.

    Schuck PH (1989), p. 323.

  106. 106.

    Zimring FE (1983), p. 455.

  107. 107.

    Winick BJ (1996b), p. 657.

  108. 108.

    Ibid.

  109. 109.

    Winick BJ (1997), p. 196.

  110. 110.

    Slobogin C (1995), pp. 207–208.

  111. 111.

    Winick BJ (1996b), p. 664.

  112. 112.

    Slobogin C (1995), p. 218.

  113. 113.

    Ibid 210.

  114. 114.

    Winick BJ (1997), p. 203.

  115. 115.

    Slobogin C (1995), p. 210.

  116. 116.

    Ibid 218.

  117. 117.

    Winick BJ (1997), p. 198.

  118. 118.

    Schopp RF (1996), p. 725.

  119. 119.

    Slobogin C (1995), p. 213.

  120. 120.

    Ibid 211.

  121. 121.

    Ibid.

  122. 122.

    Perlin ML (2000), pp. 1047–1048; Wexler DB (1995), p. 231.

  123. 123.

    Winick BJ (1997), p. 188.

  124. 124.

    Ibid 191.

  125. 125.

    Slobogin C (1995), p. 212.

  126. 126.

    Ibid 216.

  127. 127.

    Ibid.

  128. 128.

    Ibid 218–219.

  129. 129.

    Winick BJ (1997), p. 186.

  130. 130.

    Winick BJ (1996–1997), p. 84.

  131. 131.

    Winick BJ (1996c), pp. 160–161.

  132. 132.

    Fulero SM and Everington C (2004), p. 56.

  133. 133.

    Ibid.

  134. 134.

    Glover M (2012), p. 437.

  135. 135.

    Champine PR, (2003), p. 191.

  136. 136.

    Ibid.

  137. 137.

    Ibid 192.

  138. 138.

    Ibid 192.

  139. 139.

    Ibid 193.

  140. 140.

    Ibid.

  141. 141.

    Ellis HS (2003), p. 195.

  142. 142.

    Ibid.

  143. 143.

    Ibid.

  144. 144.

    Ibid 195–196.

  145. 145.

    Ibid 196.

  146. 146.

    Ibid 198–199.

  147. 147.

    Ibid 196.

  148. 148.

    The American test assesses whether the testator, ‘(a) know[s] the nature and extent of his property, (b) know[s] the natural objects of his bounty, (c) know[s] how the proposed will disposes of his property, and (d) [has] … the ability to make a rational plan to dispose of his property’. Ibid 197.

  149. 149.

    Ibid; Champine PR (2003), p. 183.

  150. 150.

    Ellis HS (2003), pp. 197–198.

  151. 151.

    Ibid 198.

  152. 152.

    Ibid 200.

  153. 153.

    Ibid.

  154. 154.

    Winick BJ (1996c), p. 158.

  155. 155.

    Winick BJ (1998), p. 919.

  156. 156.

    McMahon M and Wexler D (2003), p. 3.

References

  • Attorney General’s Department of New South Wales (2008) Capacity Toolkit. http://www.justice.nsw.gov.au/diversityservices/Documents/capacity_toolkit0609.pdf. Accessed 1 Nov 2016

  • Australian Law Reform Commission (2014) Equality, Capacity and Disability in Commonwealth Laws, Summary Report 124

    Google Scholar 

  • Carney T (1995) Judging the competence of older people: an alternative. Ageing Soc 15(4):515–534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Champine PR (2003) Dealing with mental disability in trust & estate law practice: a sanist will? N Y Law School J Int Comp Law 22:177

    Google Scholar 

  • Cockerill J, Collier B, Maxwell K (2005) Legal requirements and current practices. In: Collier B, Coyne C, Sullivan K (eds) Mental capacity, powers of attorney and advance health directives. Federation Press, Leichardt

    Google Scholar 

  • Darzins P, Molloy DW, Strang D (eds) (2000) Who can decide? The six step capacity assessment process. Memory Australia Press, Adelaide

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis HS (2003) Dealing with mental disability in trust & estate law practice: “strengthen the things that remain:” the sanist will. N Y Law School J Int Comp Law 19:195

    Google Scholar 

  • Finkelman D, Grisso T (1996) Therapeutic jurisprudence: from idea to application. In: Wexler DB, Winick BJ (eds) Law in a therapeutic key: developments in therapeutic jurisprudence. Carolina Academic Press, Durham

    Google Scholar 

  • Freckelton I (2008) Therapeutic jurisprudence misunderstood and misrepresented: the price and risks of influence. Thomas Jefferson Law Rev 30:575–751

    Google Scholar 

  • Freiberg A (2003) Therapeutic jurisprudence in Australia: paradigm shift or pragmatic incrementalism? In: McMahon M, Wexler D (eds) Therapeutic jurisprudence. Federation Press, Leichhardt

    Google Scholar 

  • Fulero SM, Everington C (2004) Assessing the capacity of persons with mental retardation to waive Miranda rights: a jurisprudent therapy approach. Law Psychol Rev 28:53

    Google Scholar 

  • Glover M (2012) A therapeutic jurisprudential framework of estate planning. Seattle Univ Law Rev 35:427

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall MA (2002–2003) Law, medicine, and trust. Stanford Law Rev 55:463–527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapp MB (2003) The law and older persons is geriatric jurisprudence therapeutic? Carolina Academic Press, Durham

    Google Scholar 

  • Magner E (1998) Therapeutic jurisprudence: its potential for Australia. Revista Juridica Universidad de Puerto Rica 67:121

    Google Scholar 

  • McMahon M, Wexler D (2003) Therapeutic jurisprudence: developments and applications in Australia and New Zealand. In: McMahon M, Wexler D (eds) Therapeutic jurisprudence. Federation Press, Leichardt

    Google Scholar 

  • Moye J, Marson DC (2007) Assessment of decision-making capacity on older adults: an emerging area of practice and research. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 62(1):3–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moye J, Marson DC, Edelstein B (2013) Assessment of capacity in an aging society. Am Psychol 68(3):158–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker M (2004) Judging capacity: paternalism and the risk-related standard. J Law Med 11(4):482–491

    Google Scholar 

  • Perlin ML (1992–1993) Pretexts and mental disability law: the case of competency. Miami Law Rev 47:625

    Google Scholar 

  • Perlin ML (1996) The jurisprudence of the insanity defence. In: Wexler DB, Winick BJ (eds) Law in a therapeutic key. Carolina Academic Press, Durham

    Google Scholar 

  • Perlin M (2000) “For the Misdemeanour Outlaw:” the impact of the ADA on the institutionalization of criminal defendants with mental disabilities. Alabama Law Rev 52:193

    Google Scholar 

  • Perlin ML (2003) Dealing with mental disability in trust and estate law practice: “things have changed:” looking at non-institutional mental disability law through the sanism filter. N Y Law School J Int Comp Law 22:165

    Google Scholar 

  • Schopp RF (1996) Therapeutic jurisprudence and conflicts among values in mental health law. In: Wexler DB, Winick BJ (eds) Law in a therapeutic key: developments in therapeutic jurisprudence. Carolina Academic Press, Durham

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuck PH (1989) Why don’t law professors do more empirical research. J Leg Educ 39:323

    Google Scholar 

  • Slobogin C (1995) Therapeutic jurisprudence: five dilemmas to ponder. Psychol Public Policy Law 1(1):193–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Small MA (1993) Legal psychology and therapeutic jurisprudence. St Louis Univ Law J 37:675

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler TR (1996) The psychological consequences of judicial procedures: implications for civil commitment hearings. In: Wexler DB, Winick BJ (eds) Law in a therapeutic key: developments in therapeutic jurisprudence. Carolina Academic Press, Durham

    Google Scholar 

  • Wexler DB (1995) Reflections on the scope of therapeutic jurisprudence. Psychol Public Policy Law 1(1):220–236

    Google Scholar 

  • Winick BJ (1991a) Competency to consent to treatment: the distinction between assent and objection. Houston Law Rev 28:15–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Winick BJ (1996–1997) Advance directive instruments for those with mental illness’ (1996–1997). Univ Miami Law Rev 51:57–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Winick BJ (1996a) The side effects of incompetency labeling and the implications for mental health law. In: Wexler DB, Winick BJ (eds) Law in a therapeutic key: developments in therapeutic jurisprudence. Carolina Academic Press, Durham

    Google Scholar 

  • Winick BJ (1996b) The jurisprudence of therapeutic jurisprudence. In: Wexler DB, Winick BJ (eds) Law in a therapeutic key: developments in therapeutic jurisprudence. Carolina Academic Press, Durham

    Google Scholar 

  • Winick BJ (1996c) The MacArthur treatment competence study: legal and therapeutic implications. Psychol Public Policy Law 2(1): 137-166

    Google Scholar 

  • Winick BJ (1997) The jurisprudence of therapeutic jurisprudence. Psychol Public Policy Law 3(1):184–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winick BJ (1998) Client denial and resistance in the advance directive context reflections on how attorneys can identify and deal with a psycholegal soft spot. Psychol Public Policy Law 4(3):901–923

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimring FE (1983) Where do the new scholars learn new scholarship? J Leg Educ 33:453

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Australian Centre for Health Law Research, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

    Kelly Purser

Authors
  1. Kelly Purser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Purser, K. (2017). Therapeutic Jurisprudence. In: Capacity Assessment and the Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54347-5_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54347-5_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-54345-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-54347-5

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation