Judging in a Therapeutic Key: Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Courts

Table of Contents
Reviews
Part I of the book Describes the newly emerging problem-solving courts (such as drug treatment courts, domestic violence courts, mental health courts, etc.), and other related approaches to problem-solving judging and judging with an explicit ethic of care. It shows how judges can use therapeutic jurisprudence not only in specialized problem-solving courts, but in general civil and criminal judicial settings as well. In Part II, the book covers emerging “principles” of therapeutic jurisprudence that seem to be at work in successful judicial approaches: how courts can encourage offender reform, how they can help offenders develop problem-solving and coping skills, how they can encourage offender compliance with release conditions, how they can serve as effective risk managers, and much more.

Book Blurbs:

“Perhaps no other movement in the past decade has so influenced American trial courts as the emergence of thousands of problem solving courts. To appreciate this movement and its growing impact, judges should learn principles of therapeutic jurisprudence to enhance their critical missions.”
Maura D. Corrigan, Chief Justice, Michigan Supreme Court, and Chair, Problem Solving Courts Committee, Conference of Chief Justices

“Therapeutic jurisprudence offers a new vantage point from which to view some old problems. . . . It is a lens with which to see others, sometimes overlooked effects of what we do, and to consider whether changes we could make would produce even better results for those touched by our work.”
Steve Leben, Kansas (State) District Judge; Editor, Court Review (the journal of the American Judges Association); Adjunct Professor of Law, University of Missouri-Kansas City.

We can no longer afford to have a judicial system that does not reflect the insights of Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the multidisciplinary approach of this book.
Nathalie Des Rosiers, President, Law Commission of Canada, and Professor of Law, University of Ottawa.

An excellent reference source for those members of the judiciary who have been practicing Therapeutic Jurisprudence in a theoretical and jurisprudential vacuum.
Jelena Popovic, Deputy Chief Magistrate, Victoria, Australia.

Therapeutic Jurisprudence proposes a broadening of the role of the judge, which has traditionally been limited to fact-finding adn law-applying. Therapeutic Jurisprudence asks why the judicial role should not extend to the search for solutions to an individual’s cycle of offending. This is a perspective that deserves to be taken very seriously by the judiciary.
Stan Thorburn, Judge, District Court, Auckland, New Zealand.