Problem-Solving Courts
Problem-Solving Courts
In our complex society, courts are increasingly asked to address social problems that don’t fit the traditional model of adversarial justice and punishment: drug use, homelessness, domestic violence, child neglect, mental illness, veterans struggling to reintegrate after war. Problem-solving courts try to address the root cause of the offense rather than simply punishing it. The first drug court was started in Miami in 1989, and thousands have since sprung up around the world, using a support structure of drug testing, treatment programs, housing and employment help, and a team of resource people, in place of incarceration.
In 1989, the first drug court was started in Miami, Florida and since then, thousands of problem-solving courts have sprung up across the United States and around the world. Problem-solving courts focus on treatment of the underlying issue rather than incarceration. For example, if someone writes bad checks to pay for drugs and is arrested, the drug court approach would be to create a structure of support to get the defendant off drugs. The defendant would likely be regularly drug-tested, required to attend a program such as Narcotics Anonymous, obtain housing and employment, etc. The support structure might include drug treatment, social services, and a whole team of resources. The defendant must comply with the case plan set out for him or her, often over a period of up to three years, or the case reverts to the punishment system.
Judges in problem-solving courts generally take a therapeutic jurisprudence approach whereby they see each defendant as a human being and recognize the role of the court as having opportunity for impacting lasting change. Many such judges become parental figures, meting out advice, enforcing consequences and cheering for success.
Proponents of problem-solving courts argue that there is a significant cost savings. Providing the support for rehabilitation increases the probability that the defendant will become a productive, tax-paying citizen. Opponents of problem-solving courts generally argue that they are soft on crime.
Judge Peggy Hora
Judge Peggy Hora, who chaired the committee that set up California’s first drug treatment court in 1992, put it simply: within a year of taking the bench, she noticed that sending people to jail for drug offenses “was expensive, and it didn’t work.” She asked a different question: “What is the behavior, what is the underlying issue, that is bringing this person back to court over and over again? Can we use the power of the court, and the power of a collaborative justice model, to help solve the problem?” By the time she retired, the movement she helped found had grown from 100 people at the first National Association of Drug Court Professionals meeting to thousands of problem-solving courts across 20 countries.
Judge Steven Leifman
Judge Steven Leifman of Miami-Dade County tells a similar story of a brilliant, Harvard-educated former head of psychiatry who was cycling through jail, homeless, with untreated schizophrenia. Unable to legally order the man into treatment, Leifman called a two-day meeting with sheriffs, police chiefs, prosecutors, public defenders, and providers, and together they built a new system that diverted people with mental illness into a crisis stabilization unit instead of a cell. Misdemeanor recidivism in that population dropped from 70 percent to 20 percent. As Leifman put it, “There’s a certain moral authority of the judge’s office, that if we use it well, you really can bring people to the table.”
Judge Jeri Beth Cohen
Judge Jeri Beth Cohen of Miami-Dade County built one of the nation’s first Dependency Drug Courts, for families in the child-welfare system affected by addiction, and Judge Tracy McCooey of Montgomery, Alabama pioneered victim–offender conferences from the bench — even, memorably, for a murder case, over her district attorney’s objections. All of these judges independently arrived at the same conviction: that litigation should be a last resort, not a first one, and that people engaged as partners in solving a problem are far more likely to actually solve it.
Bringing Science into the Courtroom
From the beginning, Problem-Solving Courts have been based on scientific evidence.
Bringing Science into the Courtroom
The problem-solving approach is particularly poignant in the case of mentally ill defendants who may just need the proper medical care to live normal and productive lives. Studies have shown that a large percentage of incarcerated individuals have issues with mental illness.
Shannon Murphy in The Flint Journal noted that, “Statewide, it costs more than $130 a day to house someone with a mental health illness in a state prison, according to Michigan budget information.” and quoted a local official as saying, “There are so many in the jail that when they are on their medications can be out in the community as productive members of society.”
Mental health courts versus incarceration
The Flint Journal article on mental health courts went on to note:
- To house someone with a mental illness in a jail, it can cost about $125 per day.
- It costs about $33 per day to send someone through Mental Health Court.
- It can cost about $130 a day to house someone in a state prison who has a mental illness.
- A day in a psychiatric hospital can cost between $500 to $1,000.
- On average, it costs about $5,500 annually per adult for treatment of a mental illness.
- Nationally about 56 percent of state prisoners and 64 percent of jail inmates had a mental health problem.