No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Preface: A new model for the practice of law.
Abstract
In this Preface, the guest editors of this special theme issue describe the new therapeutic jurisprudence–preventive law model that the issue illustrates and analyzes. They also discuss the organization of the special issue and summarize its contents. Finally, they discuss the significance of the special issue to lawyers, legal educators, and psychologists and other social scientists.
... These specialized courts seek to address the root cause of criminal behavior rather than superficially dealing with a symptom of some deep underlying issue (Reiksts, 2008). Based on the principles of both Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Restorative Justice, these new court systems shed the traditional adversarial court model in favor of a more rehabilitative approach to justice (Schneider, Bloom, & Heerema, 2007;Wexler & Winick, 1992;Winick, Wexler, & Dauer, 1999). Due to the limited existence of these courts in Canada in comparison with the United States, the focus for the purposes of the present article will be on three specific kinds of problem-solving courts: community, mental health and drug courts. ...
This chapter illustrates the key principles of Mental Health Courts (MHCs) in the two case study sites detailing the selection process, treatment plans, conditions of probation, and the services offered to those opting-into the court. The chapter reveals how clients decide to opt-in or opt-out of the MHC and the ways in which some involuntarily get catch in the web of MHC. It details the MHC team members and specifically considers the role of the judge and other members of the team as therapeutic agents in dispensing therapeutic justice.
This article is a review of the current literature on female sexual offenders. It focuses on the demographic and clinical characteristics of this subgroup of sexual offenders and also considers legal and policy issues facing female sexual offenders today.
During the Old Saybrook 2 Conference, held May 11-14, 2000, on the campus of the State University of West Georgia, the author participated in a dialogue session about the challenges facing humanistic psychology and the opportunities that exist to more effectively sustain continued contributions to this movement.1 Extending this discussion here, disparate developments are highlighted that suggest the humanistic psychology movement is alive and well, even where it is not specifically referenced. The existence of numerous allies or kindred spirits, it is argued, constitute an extended but often unrecognized community of support for humanistic psychology's ideals, aims, and purposes. Yet more could be done by those committed to this movement to acknowledge, express appreciation for, and build productive bridges to the contributions of these individuals and groups.
Inpatient assault of forensic and psychiatric staff is a complex and multifaceted issue. Hence, the consequences reported in the literature regarding prosecuting assaultive inpatients are quite variable. In this article, issues pertaining to the prosecution of violent inpatients are reviewed. Illustrative cases, challenges of prosecution, potential policies, therapeutic jurisprudence, pocket probation, and mental health courts are discussed.
In this Preface, the guest editors of this special theme issue describe the new therapeutic jurisprudence–preventive law model that the issue illustrates and analyzes. They also discuss the organization of the special issue and summarize its contents. Finally, they discuss the significance of the special issue to lawyers, legal educators, and psychologists and other social scientists. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Since collaborative law was first proposed, collaborative practitioners have expanded its concepts and methods as it has grown in acceptance by professionals and the public. This article addresses how collaborative law can further expand its theoretical and practical base by drawing from social science perspectives on negotiation, conflict resolution and third-party interventions. It also explores how collaborative practice draws upon two prevailing models of negotiation, the strategic problem-solving and the social-psychological model, and demonstrates how tools from each model can be used at different points in a collaborative case's lifecycle.
Translation of evidence-based practice (EBP) into health care policy is of growing importance, with discussions most often focused on how to fund and otherwise promote EBP through policy (i.e., at system level, beyond the bedside). Less attention has been focused on how to ensure that such policies - as enacted and implemented, and as distinguished from the practices underlying policies - do not themselves cause harm, or at least frustrate accomplishment of "therapeutic" goals of EBP. On a different front, principles of therapeutic jurisprudence (TJ) in law have been developed, most prominently in certain areas of law (e.g., mental health and family law), to support more collaborative, less traumatic advocacy and conflict resolution. This paper draws on current applications of TJ and translates such into a therapeutic approach to health care policymaking that moves beyond promotion of EBP in policy. Health care policy itself may be viewed as an intervention that impacts health, positively or not. The goal is to offer a framework for health care policymaking grounded in TJ principles that does not focus on which evidence is "right" for policy use, but rather how we can better understand how consequences of policy, intended or not, affect the well-being of populations. Such framework thus moves policymaking from an either/or debate to a data- and human-driven process. Utilizing TJ framing questions, policies can be developed and evaluated through open dialogue among diverse voices at the table, including - like interventions - the "patients" or, here, targets of such policies. Collectively, they clarify how ends sought - to enhance (or at least not impair) health - can best be achieved through policy when needed, recognizing that as an intervention, there are limits to and boundaries on the usefulness of policy.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.