Essay on Problem-Solving Courts

The theoretical roots of problem-solving courts can be traced to the innovation in policing and more specifically the community and the problem-related policing that tried replacing the traditional law enforcement focus. This traditional law enforcement focused majorly on responding to the offenses while focusing on highlighting the patterns of crime, improving the prevailing condition that led to the crime and involving the community as an active partner (Kaye, 2002). The new policing strategies were a major boost towards inspiring similar strategies to the rest of the judicial system, thereby helping the rise of innovations such as problem-solving courts, community courts, and the community protection. Currently, numerous problem-solving courts are trying to implement new approaches to complex cases whereby social and legal issues intersect. According to Berman & Feinblatt (2001), judges are testing this new way of doing justice by re-engineering how state courts address cases related to mental illness, drugs and child neglect. The approach hides behind a believe that judges are mandated to solve problems lead to court proceedings be it the victim, witness or the defendants.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Mental health courts, for instance, have over the years addressed only the jail crowding and the increasing number of mentally ill inmates while holding the offenders accountable for their crimes (Winick, 2002). With the incorporation of problem-solving strategies, courts such as Tucson City Court now supervise the mentally ill criminals and provide support services with the aim of reducing the recidivism rate. The Tucson City Court provides mentally ill patients treatment for some time and about 15-day jail sentence instead of 6-months, thereby solving the criminal reason for committing the crime.

Historically, addressed jail crowding issues and the inconsistent statistics of these offenders in the criminal justice system in the U.S but did not focus on solving the reason as to why they committed these crimes. They accepted every offender while some could not demonstrate their involvement in the offenses and posed a public safety risk. Other jurisdictions have managed to establish problem-solving courts to improve the fairness of mentally ill criminal cases. These courts have combined judicial supervision and community mental health treatment programs with a collaboration of other support services to reduce crimes and improve the quality of life of the affected citizens (Dorf & Fagan, 2003). They have made more effective the application of limited criminal justice and the mental health programs to link those affected while at the same time addressing the public safety concern related to mentally ill criminals. Moreover, jail overcrowding and disproportionate statistics of these people have been taken into account.

There exist numerous obstacles that have affected the operation of these problem-solving courts and the realization of their legal goals and objectives. These constraints involve political, social and economic challenges. The new system requires a larger and more skilled workforce as compared to the traditional strategy hence the need to input more finance. There has been a problem managing judge, court staff and coordinating with outside services to manage the mentally ill criminals. The society has a negative perception towards these criminals at times fail to follow legal process hence compromising the efforts put in place to use the problem-solving courts. The public has murdered some of the mentally ill criminals with the aim of achieving justice for the offense committed (Moore & Hiday, 2006). Politically, there have been numerous debates surrounding the operation and management of such problem-solving courts thereby creating significant challenge towards their sustainable development and ensuring proper judicial strategies are used.

Large scale involvement of those with mental illness in the criminal justice has been an essential national problem. The number of people with intractable mental illness jailed was about 804,000 annually during the 80's. This indicates that offenders with mental illness were given longer jail term than others charged with similar crimes to cycle through the criminal justice system. These courts have implemented therapeutic goals like the increase adherence to treat and decrease their involvement in the legal system (Watson et al., 2001). There have been some common features involving separate dockets for the defendants with mental illness and a designated jury approaching these cases. These people have often collaborated with mental health professionals with the defendant agreeing to undergo treatment before the court proceedings are initiated. In this case, the court team aims at finding the treatment to the course of the crime while also protecting the public.

These types of problem-solving courts have been embraced by various governments since they have been beneficial to the community and the well-being of the criminal. Rather than giving them jail terms to a poorly equipped and crowded prison, treatment has been offered and helped with their housing and the provision of other amenities. The community has saved the cost of locking them in jails and offered them another opportunity to realize their purpose and start new chapters in their lives. In this case, everybody wins.

Mental health court has been a great idea that has helped people with psychiatric problems get treatment effectively. Criminals who have been charged with psychiatric issues have been evaluated and given treatment plan which is monitored by a judge. In other courts, the mentally ill defendant can plead guilty and receive a suspended sentence which, if completed the sentence is imposed. Other courts have suspected their cases until the health program is completed to allow the defendant defend their cases appropriately. Those who often fail to comply with the program are sent to the normal court systems to undergo original charges.

In conclusion, the problem-solving courts have provided the best framework for ensuring justice is achieved and every person in a case benefits. This is contrary to the traditional justice system that focused majorly on responding to the offenses while focusing on highlighting the patterns of crime, improving the prevailing condition that led to the crime and involving the community as an active partner.

References

Berman, G., & Feinblatt, J. (2001). Problemsolving courts: A brief primer. Law & Policy, 23(2), 125-140.

Dorf, M. C., & Fagan, J. A. (2003). Problem-solving courts: From innovation to institutionalization. Am. Crim. L. Rev., 40, 1501.

Kaye, J. S. (2002). Problem-Solving Courts. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 29(5), 1925.

Moore, M. E., & Hiday, V. A. (2006). Mental health court outcomes: a comparison of re-arrest and re-arrest severity between mental health court and traditional court participants. Law and human behavior, 30(6), 659-674.

Watson, A., Hanrahan, P., Luchins, D., & Lurigio, A. (2001). Mental health courts and the complex issue of mentally ill offenders. Psychiatric Services, 52(4), 477-481.

Winick, B. J. (2002). Therapeutic jurisprudence and problem-solving courts. Fordham Urb. LJ, 30, 1055.