Bruce J. Winick’s research while affiliated with University of Miami and other places

Without a co‐occurring psychiatric illness, people diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) would not be subject to involuntary inpatient hospitalization. This chapter explains why ASPD does not and should not qualify for civil commitment, and analyzes the question of whether it should qualify for the lesser intrusion of preventive outpatient commitment. Civil commitment deprives the individual of the fundamental constitutional liberty in freedom from external restraint. Preventive outpatient commitment does not present the massive curtailment of liberty produced by involuntary hospitalization. However, it does constitute an invasion of constitutionally protected liberty. Without the full cooperation of the psychopathic individual and a genuine desire to change, it is unlikely that forced outpatient treatment will be effective. Thus, psychotherapeutic and cognitive behavioral interventions for those with ASPD would seem to be effective only to the extent the individual is motivated to change and cooperates fully in the therapeutic process.

A transformation in the judiciary has occurred over the past 20 years. The traditional role of the courts has been to adjudicate disputed issues of fact in civil and criminal cases. Traditionally, judges were neutral arbiters considering conflicting evidence and rendering a decision based on the law and the facts. However, because a variety of social and psychological problems finding their way to the courts, a metamorphosis has occurred in the judicial role. Indeed, these courts, collectively often referred to as problem-solving courts, have different jurisdiction than traditional courts and separate judges who preside in them. The judicial teams in these courts address social problems such as drug addiction, alcoholism, domestic violence, untreated mental illness, and prisoner reentry into society. This chapter discusses therapeutic jurisprudence as the underlying philosophy that directs and guides these new courts. It discusses the changing roles of judges, attorneys, and clients who make use of the problem-solving court model highlighting the gains that the movement has made and comparing the gains to the new challenges that have arisen as the result of the altered roles of the legal actors in these courts. Problem-solving courts represent a newly broadened conception of the role of the courts, one that is fully consistent with the basic concept of therapeutic jurisprudence. It is a noble undertaking to close the revolving door to certain kinds of repetitive offenses by providing judicially supervised and monitored treatment to those motivated to undertake it. To perform this new judicial role, judges need to develop and improve their interpersonal, psychological, and social work skills. The chapter ends with a discussion of how therapeutic jurisprudence can add to the training and development of legal professionals who can make a difference in the problem-solving courts of the future. © 2013 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. All rights are reserved.

Discusses the development of mental heath law in United States and a litigated issue involving the rights of mental patients and criminal offenders to refuse treatment. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

Discusses right to refuse treatment which has been one of the most controversial issues in mental health law over the past almost 30 years. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

People suffering from mental illness are increasingly referred to the domestic violence court. Yet the typical diversion programs available, including batterer's intervention programs, are inappropriate for those with serious mental illness. As a result, the Miami-Dade Domestic Violence Court has developed a new approach for dealing with this population that applies mental health court techniques in domestic violence court. This article will describe and discuss this pioneering model. It also will situate this model within the context of other problem-solving courts and discuss how the court uses principles and approaches of therapeutic jurisprudence. The paper presents some preliminary data that describe the social and legal characteristics of 20 defendants in the Domestic Violence Mental Health Court followed over a two year period between 2005 and 2007.

Recent years have seen a proliferation of problem solving courts designed to rehabilitate certain classes of offenders and thereby resolve the underlying problems that led to their court involvement in the first place. Some commentators have reacted positively to these courts, considering them an extension of the philosophy and logic of Therapeutic Jurisprudence, but others show concern that the discourse surrounding these specialty courts has not examined their process or outcomes critically enough. This paper examines that criticism from historical and social scientific perspectives. The analysis culminates in a model that describes how offenders are likely to respond to the process as they engage in problem solving court programs and the ways in which those courts might impact subsequent offender conduct. This Therapeutic Jurisprudence model of problem solving courts draws heavily on social cognitive psychology and more specifically on theories of procedural justice, motivation, and anticipated emotion to offer an explanation of how offenders respond to these programs. We offer this model as a lens through which social scientists can begin to address the concern that there is not enough critical analysis of the process and outcome of these courts. Applying this model to specialty courts constitutes an important step in critically examining the contribution of problem solving courts.

People suffering from mental illness are increasingly referred to the domestic violence court. Yet the typical diversion programs available, including batterer’s intervention programs, are inappropriate for those with serious mental illness. As a result, the Miami-Dade Domestic Violence Court has developed a new approach for dealing with this population that applies mental health court techniques in domestic violence court. This Article will describe and discuss this pioneering model. It also will situate this model within the context of other problem-solving courts and discuss how the court uses principles and approaches of therapeutic jurisprudence. The paper presents some preliminary data that describe the social and legal characteristics of 20 defendants in the Domestic Violence Mental Health Court followed over a two year period.

This foreword to a law review symposium on victim's rights describes the approach of therapeutic jurisprudence and suggests how its approach can be used to improve the plight of the victim in the criminal justice process.

The problem of elder drivers experiencing impariments that diminish their driving abilities raises serious concerns for public health and safety. Although this is an important health problem, existing state practices are inadequate in several respects and impose unnecessary negative social, economic, health, and psychological consequences for many of the elder drivers whose driving privileges are restricted or terminated.This article uses the approach of Therapeutic Jurisprudence to examine these issues by focusing attention on the antitherapeutic consequences of existing rules and practices. Therapeutic jurisprudence provides a useful complement to public health strategies for dealing with these issues. We seek to balance the public health needs of the community with the desire to minimize the negative consequences that existing practices pose on the psychological wellbeing of elder drivers and their families. We propose a comprehensive solution based on the Social Ecology of Health model augmented by principles and approaches of therapeutic jurisprudence. This model, which we call the Safe Driving Center, combines screening and assessment, remedial/rehabilitation interventions, education and training, individual and family counseling, and a comprehensive community-based approach for dealing with the problem preventatively. Whenever possible, the center will seek to persuade impaired elder drivers voluntarily to cease or restrict their driving by offering inducements and alternative transportation solutions.