NCJ Number
189135
Journal
Law and Policy Volume: 23 Issue: 2 Dated: April 2001 Pages: 125-140
Editor(s)
Jeffrey A. Butts
Date Published
April 2001
Length
16 pages
Annotation
This article traced the history of problem-solving courts, outlined a basic set of problem-solving principles, and answered a set of questions regarding these new judicial experiments.
Abstract
In delivering justice in new and innovative ways, problem-solving courts have taken on many forms, such as domestic violence court, drug court, community court, or mental health court. They were organized with the desire to improve the results courts achieve for victims, litigants, defendants, and communities. These courts continue to be a work in progress. The current wave of problem-solving experimentation can be traced back to the opening of the first drug court in Dade County, Florida. Since then, dozens of other specialized problem-solving courts have been developed to test new approaches to difficult cases. The most important forces identified in contributing to the development of problem-solving courts are the rising caseloads and increasing frustration with the standard approach to case processing in State courts. These courts are an attempt to achieve better outcomes while at the same time protecting individual rights. While problem-solving initiatives address different problems, they do share some common elements: (1) case outcomes; (2) system change; (3) judicial monitoring; (4) collaboration; and (5) non-traditional roles. Evaluations of problem-solving courts are just starting to emerge with promising results. Preliminary results showed a number of areas of potential tension between this new brand of jurisprudence and standard practice in State courts: (1) coercion; (2) zealous advocacy; (3) structure; (4) impartiality; (5) paternalism; and (6) separation of powers. While these issues were seen as serious, they might easily be resolved by better planning and the development and dissemination of best practices. Problem-solving courts have begun to spark the interest of not just frontline practitioners, but the chief judges and administrators who make decisions about court policies and operations. Yet, to accomplish their goal of formal institutionalization, problem-solving courts must begin to preach to the unconverted, reaching out to the skeptics within State courts. These challenges were seen as worthwhile with results of first generation problem-solving courts indicating reduced recidivism among drug-addicted offenders, reduced probation violation and dismissal rates in domestic violence cases, and improved public safety. References