The Role of the Court in Problem-Solving Cases
In 2006, the Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) and SJI held a two-day meeting of judges and court administrators to discuss how problem solving court programs function within, and are influenced by, the traditional court system. This group included members who did not directly work in a problem-solving court program, but who had extensive experience with court management issues within jurisdictions where problem-solving courts operate.
One of the questions that continued to be asked at the meeting was, “what is the role of the court in many of the problem-solving cases?” There is a general acceptance that drug courts work and the success of that approach has set a precedent for adopting more problem-solving approaches for other types of cases. Yet one of the first challenges from the traditional court perspective was determining whether the role of the court is to solve societal issues, or simply to adjudicate cases that come into the justice system. In some cases, moving the problem-solving approach into areas that were not normally a part of the system was viewed as problematic for the court, and would actually cause a net-widening impact. For example, the validity of homeless courts was questioned, given that being homeless is not illegal even though there may be some homeless defendants that do get involved in criminal activity. It was noted that in some homeless courts, individuals were being brought to court on public nuisance charges, which would not have resulted in the same action for an individual on the street who was not homeless. Some court personnel felt that courts should not have the same hold on these individuals as they would if a more serious issue was involved. In addition, it was also noted that using these charges for the homeless, even though it did provide some advantages for the defendant (placing him/her in a shelter, etc.), further raised the question of fairness. Are all individuals with the same types of charges being treated the same way by the court, or are the homeless being treated differently simply because they are homeless?
Some of the traditional court participants argued that courts were being pushed to become gatekeepers for social services or health concerns that should be handled by the relevant social service providers, not the courts. This was concerning to some of the participants, even though the individuals were receiving helpful services. Several participants noted that the loss of the adversarial approach in many of the problem-solving courts was also problematic for traditional court personnel. The participants agreed that they were not interested in simply promoting a contentious adversarial process that would slow the court system down, but they noted the importance of maintaining an approach that allowed different positions to be considered to assure that the situation of the defendant was understood, and appropriate measures were applied. They wanted to be sure that the adversarial process would not be lightly put aside in problem-solving techniques, and that courts should always keep an eye on the fairness of the approach being used to assure that all individuals are being treated equally in the justice system.
The participants of this meeting agreed that there was clear evidence that judicially-supervised drug offenders have lower recidivism and better outcomes in many problem-solving courts, and it would be helpful to encourage continued use of the techniques that have been developed for these cases. However, they also wanted to be sure courts carefully consider the purpose and need for such programs and examine the fairness and appropriate role of the court in such efforts.
SJI staff was told that the report from this meeting will soon be published by BJA. SJI will put a notice in the E-SJI News once the report is released.
