Problem-Solving Courts and the Criminal Justice System

Abstract

Individuals with behavioral health disorders are significantly overrepresented in the criminal justice system. The incarceration of offenders with substance use disorders and mental illness has contributed to dramatic growth in the incarcerated population in the United States. Problem-solving courts provide judicially supervised treatment for behavioral health needs commonly found among offenders, including substance abuse and mental health, and they treat a variety of offender populations. By addressing the problems that underlie criminal behavior, problem-solving courts seek to decrease the “revolving door” that results when offender needs are not addressed. Problem-solving courts use a team approach among the judge, defense attorney, prosecutor, and treatment providers, which is a paradigm shift in how the justice system treats offenders with special needs. Offenders in problem-solving courts are held accountable for their behavior while being provided with judicially supervised treatment designed to reduce the risk of reoffending. Despite the proliferation of problem-solving courts, there are unanswered questions about how they function, how effective they are, and the most promising ways to implement problem-solving justice. Problem-Solving Courts and the Criminal Justice System is the first book to focus broadly on problem-solving courts. The changing landscape of the criminal justice system, recent development of problem-solving courts, and ongoing shift toward offender rehabilitation underscore the need for this book. This book provides those in the fields of mental health, criminal justice, law, and related fields with a comprehensive foundation of information related to the role of problem-solving courts in reforming the criminal justice system. This book also provides researchers, academics, administrators, and policy-makers with an overview of the existing research on problem-solving courts, including the challenges faced by researchers when examining these courts.

Treatment for restoration of competence to stand trial: Critical analysis and policy recommendations.

“…The literature addressing defendants’ CST has broadened considerably during the last two decades. One influence has been the growth of problem-solving courts to address defendants with mental illness (e.g., DeMatteo, Heilbrun, Thornewill, & Arnold, in press), with the assumption that a defendant with significant behavioral health problems rendering him or her IST might be placed under the jurisdiction of a “competency court,” a specialized unit within a larger mental health court. One such proposal (Finkle, Kurth, Cadle, & Mullan, 2009) has suggested that the same judges, attorneys, and mental health professionals provide services in both courts.…”

Non‐paradigmatic punishments

“…Since each problem‐solving project reflects local priorities, there is no single exemplar (J. L. Miller & Johnson, 2009, p.44), or unifying theory (Berman, 2009, p.3; Strang, 2004, p.76). Nevertheless, there are shared features: Collaboration; Information sharing; Individually tailored sentences; [Successful] Outcomes; Accountability (see particularly J. L. Miller & Johnson, 2009, pp.123–124; also Nolan, 2009, pp.10–11). Community engagement (DeMatteo et al., 2019; Wolf, 2007) …”

Therapy with Exonerated Clients: Domains of Need

“…There has also been growth in the delivery of such services to justice-involved individuals in the community, whether in lieu of or following incarceration (DeMatteo et al, 2013). While some problem-solving courts have focused on services provided during reentry (DeMatteo et al, 2019), most jurisdictions in the United States do not offer services to individuals following exoneration. In some respects, this is quite appropriate-exonerated individuals are no longer under any kind of criminal jurisdiction-but it also means that the return to the community following incarceration is not supported by even the standard services available to those on parole.…”