Advertisement

Conclusion: From Therapeutic Justice to Social Work Criminal Justice

Chapter

Abstract

In the conclusion, I turn to the implications of therapeutic justice for MHCs and broader social policy. This chapter summarizes the unique features of MHCs and their important role in contemporary models of criminal justice. It details key strengths and identifies current limitations within the MHC model. Pointing to the future, the book concludes by charting out some improvements in the functioning and effectiveness of MHCs in line with a kind of social work criminal justice. I return to the key paradigms shifts that characterize MHC and offer some reforms based on “best practices” for the next generation of MHCs and problem-solving courts more broadly. MHCs, an innovative therapeutic model of jurisprudence, are an important step toward reforming contemporary criminal justice practices.

References

  1. Andrews, D. A., and J. Bonta. 2003. The Psychology of Criminal Conduct. 3rd ed. Cincinnati: Anderson.Google Scholar
  2. Benforado, Adam. 2015. Unfair: The New Science of Criminal Injustice. New York: Crown Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Berman, Greg, and John Feinblatt. 2005. Good Courts: The Case for Problem-Solving Justice. New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bernstein, Robert, and Tammy Seltzer. 2003. “Criminalization of People with Mental Illnesses: The Role of Mental Health Courts in System Reform.” The University of the District of Columbia Law Review 7: 143–62.  https://doi.org/10.3366/ajicl.2011.0005.
  5. Boldt, Richard C. 2009. “A Circumspect Look at Problem-Solving Courts.” In Problem-Solving Courts: Justice for the Twenty-First Century, edited by Paul Higgins and Mitchell B. Mackinem, 13–32. Santa Barbara: Praeger.Google Scholar
  6. Castellano, Ursula. 2011. Outsourcing Justice: The Role of Nonprofit Caseworkers in Pretrial Release Programs. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Erickson, Patricia, and Steven Erickson. 2008. Crime, Punishment, and Mental Illness: Law and the Behavioral Sciences in Conflict. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Fisler, Carol. 2015. “When Research Challenges Policy and Practice: Toward a New Understanding of Mental Health Courts.” The Judges’ Journal 54 (2): 8–13. http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/JJ_SP15_54_2_Fisler.pdf.
  9. Griffin, Patricia A., Mark Munetz, Natalie Bonfire, and Kathleen Kemp. 2015. “Development of the Sequential Intercept Model: The Search for a Conceptual Model.” In The Sequential Intercept Model and Criminal Justice: Promoting Community Alternatives for Individuals with Serious Mental Illness, edited by Patricia A. Griffin, Kirk Heilbrun, Edward P. Mulvey, David DeMatteo, and Carol A. Schubert, 21–39. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Hartwell, Stephanie. 2004. “Triple Stigma: Persons with Mental Illness and Substance Abuse Problems in the Criminal Justice System.” Criminal Justice Policy Review 15 (1): 84–99.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403403255064.
  11. Heilbrun, Kirk, David DeMatteo, Heidi Strohmaier, and Meghann Galloway. 2015. “The Movement Toward Community-Based Alternatives to Criminal Justice Involvement and Incarceration for People with Severe Mental Illness.” In The Sequential Intercept Model and Criminal Justice: Promoting Community Alternatives for Individuals with Serious Mental Illness, edited by Patricia A. Griffin, Kirk Heilbrun, Edward P. Mulvey, David DeMatteo, and Carol A. Schubert, 1–20. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Liu, Siyi, and Allison D. Redlich. 2015. “Intercept 3: Jails and Courts.” In The Sequential Intercept Model and Criminal Justice: Promoting Community Alternatives for Individuals with Serious Mental Illness, edited by Patricia A. Griffin, Kirk Heilbrun, Edward P. Mulvey, David DeMatteo, and Carol A. Schubert, 78–94. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Miller, JoAnn, and Donald C. Johnson. 2009. Problem Solving Courts: A Measure of Justice. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  14. Nolan, James L. 1999. Legal Accents, Legal Borrowing: The International Problem-Solving Court Movement. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Ritter, Alison, and Jacqui Cameron. 2006. “A Review of the Efficacy and Effectiveness of Harm Reduction Strategies for Alcohol, Tobacco and Illicit Drugs.” Drug and Alcohol Review 25 (6): 611–24.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09595230600944529.
  16. Rottman, David, and Pamela Casey. 1999. “Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Emergence of Problem-Solving Courts.” National Institute of Justice Journal 240 (July): 12–19.Google Scholar
  17. Schneider, Richard D. 2010. “Mental Health Courts and Diversion Programs: A Global Survey.” International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 33 (4): 201–6. Elsevier Ltd.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2010.07.001.
  18. Schneider, Richard D., Hy Bloom, and Mark Heerema. 2007. Mental Health Courts: Decriminalizing the Mentally Ill. Toronto: Irwin Law.Google Scholar
  19. Seltzer, Tammy. 2005. “Mental Health Courts a Misguided Attempt to Address the Criminal Justice System’s Unfair Treatment of People with Mental Illnesses.” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 11 (4): 570–86.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.11.4.570.
  20. Skeem, Jennifer L., Paula Emke-Francis, and Jennifer Eno Louden. 2006. “Probation, Mental Health, and Mandated Treatment: A National Survey.” Criminal Justice and Behavior 33 (2): 158–84.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854805284420.
  21. Skeem, Jennifer L., Jennifer Eno Louden, Devon Polaschek, and Jacqueline Camp. 2007. “Assessing Relationship Quality in Mandated Community Treatment: Blending Care With Control.” Psychological Assessment 19 (4): 397–410.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.19.4.397.
  22. Thompson, Michael D., Melissa Reuland, and Daniel Souweine. 2003. “Criminal Justice/Mental Health Consensus: Improving Responses to People with Mental Illness.” Crime and Delinquency 49 (1): 30–51.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128702239234.
  23. Warren, Roger K. 1998. “Reengineering the Court Process,” Madison, WI, Presentation to Great Lakes Court Summit, September 24–25.Google Scholar
  24. Wexler, David B. 1973. “Therapeutic Justice.” Minnesota Law Review 57: 289–338.  https://doi.org/10.3366/ajicl.2011.0005.
  25. ———. 1996. “Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Criminal Courts.” In Law in a Therapeutic Key: Developments in Therapeutic Jurisprudence, edited by David B. Wexler and Bruce J. Winick, 157–70. Durham: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
  26. Winick, Bruce J. 1991. “Harnessing the Power of the Bet: Wagering with the Government as a Mechanism for Social and Individual Change.” University of Miami Law Review 45 (4): 737–816.  https://doi.org/10.3366/ajicl.2011.0005.
  27. ———. 1996. “The Jurisprudence of Therapeutic Jurisprudence.” In Law in a Therapeutic Key: Developments in Therapeutic Jurisprudence, edited by David B. Wexler and Bruce J. Winick, 645–68. Durham: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
  28. Wolf, Robert V. 2007. Principles of Problem Solving Justice. Center for Court Innovation. Retrieved from https://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/Principles.pdf.
  29. Wolff, Nancy, and Wendy Pogorzelski. 2005. “Measuring the Effectiveness of Mental Health Courts Challenges and Recommendations.” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 11 (4): 539–69.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.11.4.539.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Seattle Pacific UniversitySeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations