The nature of juristic paradigms : exploring the theoretical and conceptual relationship between adversarialism and therapeutic jurisprudence

Problem solving courts appear to achieve outcomes which are not common in mainstream courts. There are increasing calls for the adoption of more “therapeutic” and “problem solving” practices by mainstream judges in civil and criminal courts in a number of jurisdictions, most notably in the United States and Australia. Currently, a judge who sets out to exercise a significant therapeutic function is quite likely to be doing so in a specialist court or jurisdiction, outside the mainstream court system, and, arguably, from outside the adversarial paradigm itself. To some extent, his work is tolerated but marginalized. But do therapeutic and problem solving functions have the potential to define, rather than complement, the role of judicial officers? The basic question addressed in this paper is, therefore, whether the judicial role could evolve to be not just less adversarial, but fundamentally non-adversarial. In other words, could we see--or are we seeing--a paradigm shift not just in the colloquial, casual sense of the word, but in the strong, worldview changing sense meant by Thomas Kuhn?

Problem-solving courts, therapeutic jurisprudence and the constitution : if two is company, is three a crowd?

Court costs, resource-intensive trials, booming prison populations and the obduracy of recidivism rates all present as ugly excesses of the criminal law adversarial paradigm. To combat these excesses, problem-solving courts have evolved with an edict to address the underlying issues that have caused an individual to commit a crime. When a judge seeks to help a problem-solving court participant deal with issues like addiction, mental health or poverty, they are performing a very different role to that of a judicial officer in the traditional court hierarchy. They are no longer the removed, independent arbiter — a problem-solving court judge steps into the ‘arena’ with the participant and makes active use of their judicial authority to assist in rehabilitation and positive behavioural change. Problem-solving court judges employing the principles of therapeutic jurisprudence appreciate that their interaction with participants can have therapeutic and anti-therapeutic consequences. This article will consider how the deployment of therapeutic measures (albeit with good intention) can lead to the behavioural manifestation of partiality and bias on the part of problem-solving court judges. Chapter III of the Commonwealth Constitution will then be analysed to highlight why the operation and functioning of problem solving courts may be deemed unconstitutional. Part IV of this article will explain how a problem-solving court judge who is not acting impartially or independently will potentially contravene the requirements of the Constitution. It will finally be suggested that judges who possess a high level of emotional intelligence will be the most successful in administering an independent and impartial problem solving court.

Mainstreaming therapeutic jurisprudence and the adversarial paradigm—incommensurability and the possibility of a shared disciplinary matrix

Problem-solving courts appear to achieve outcomes that are not common in mainstream courts. There are increasing calls for the adoption of more therapeutic and problem-solving practices by mainstream judges in civil and criminal courts in a number of jurisdictions, most notably in the United States and Australia. Currently, a judge who sets out to exercise a significant therapeutic function is likely to be doing so in a specialist court or jurisdiction, outside the mainstream court system, and arguably, outside the adversarial paradigm itself. To some extent, this work is tolerated but marginalised. However, do therapeutic and problem-solving functions have the potential to help define, rather than simply complement, the role of judicial officers? The core question addressed in this thesis is whether the judicial role could evolve to be not just less adversarial, but fundamentally non-adversarial. In other words, could we see—or are we seeing—a juristic paradigm shift not just in the colloquial, casual sense of the word, but in the strong, worldview changing sense meant by Thomas Kuhn? This thesis examines the current relationship between adversarialism and therapeutic jurisprudence in the context of Kuhn’s conception of the transition from periods of ‘normal science’, through periods of anomaly and disciplinary crises to paradigm shifts. It considers whether therapeutic jurisprudence and adversarialism are incommensurable in the Kuhnian sense, and if so, what this means for the relationship between the two, and for the agenda to mainstream therapeutic jurisprudence. The thesis asserts that Kuhnian incommensurability is, in fact, a characteristic of the relationship between adversarialism and therapeutic jurisprudence, but that the possibility of a therapeutic paradigm shift in law can be reconciled with many adversarial and due process principles by relating this incommensurability to a broader disciplinary matrix.

Talking the talk : therapeutic jurisprudence and oral competence

In Australian criminal justice systems, a wide range of pathways to sentencing and punishment exist alongside traditional court processes. In particular, therapeutic jurisprudence ('TJ') processes have emerged during the last quarter of a century and now occupy a key position in the criminal justice landscape. This article provides an introduction to TJ, highlighting in particular the emphasis it places on the active participation of offenders, before critically discussing offenders' capacity to engage with TJ processes. The article then summarises the research on the oral competence of offenders, and argues that offenders who lack oral competence may be disadvantaged in TJ processes. Finally, we provide an overview of the limited guidance that has been provided to TJ practitioners on how to maximise the participation of offenders with limited oral competence.

When coroners care too much: Therapeutic jurisprudence and suicide findings

In common law countries such as England and Australia, violent and otherwise unnatural deaths are investigated by coroners who make findings as to the “manner of death”. This includes determining whether the deceased person intentionally caused their own death. Previous research (Tait and Carpenter 2013a, 2013b, 2014) has suggested that coroners are reluctant to reach such determinations, citing the stigma of suicide and a need for sensitivity to grieving and traumatized families. Based on interviews with both English and Australian coroners, this paper explores whether an ‘ethic of care’ evident in English and Australian coronial suicide determinations, can be understood as an application of the ‘practices and techniques’ of therapeutic jurisprudence. Based on the ways in which coroners position the law as a potential therapeutic agent, we investigate how they understand their role and position as legal actors, and the effects of their decision making in the context of suspected suicides.

Suicide and the therapeutic coroner : inquests, governance and the grieving family

This study of English Coronial practice raises a number of questions about the role played by the Coroner within contemporary governance. Following observations at over 20 inquests into possible suicides and in-depth interviews with six Coroners, three preliminary issue emerged, all of which pointed to a broader and, in many ways, more significant issue. These preliminary issues are concerned with: (1) the existence of considerable slippages between different Coroners over which deaths are likely to be classified as suicide; (2) the high standard of proof required and immense pressure faced by Coroners from family members at inquest to reach any verdict other than suicide, which significantly depresses likely suicide rates, and; (3) Coroners feeling no professional obligation, either individually or collectively, to contribute to the production of consistent and useful social data regarding suicide, arguably rendering comparative suicide statistics relatively worthless. These concerns lead, ultimately, to the second more important question about the role expected of Coroners within social governance and within an effective, contemporary democracy. That is, are Coroners the principal officers in the public administration of death; or are they, first and foremost, a crucial part of the grieving process, one that provides important therapeutic interventions into the mental and emotional health of the community?

A therapeutic approach to assessing legal capacity in Australia

Australia lacks a satisfactory, national paradigm for assessing legal capacity in the context of testamentary, enduring power of attorney and advance care directive documents. Capacity assessments are currently conducted on an ad hoc basis by legal and/or medical professionals. The reliability of the assessment process is subject to the skill set and mutual understanding of the legal and/or medical professional conducting the assessment. There is a growth in the prevalence of diseases such as dementia. Such diseases impact upon cognition which increasingly necessitates collaboration between the legal and medical professions when assessing the effect of mentally disabling conditions upon legal capacity. Miscommunication and lack of understanding between legal and medical professionals involved could impede the development of a satisfactory paradigm. This article will discuss legal capacity assessment in Australia and how to strengthen the relationship between legal and medical professionals involved in capacity assessments. The development of a national paradigm would promote consistency and transparency of process, helping to improve the professional relationship and maximising the principles of autonomy, participation and dignity.

Antisocial personality disorder and therapeutic justice court programs

It has become commonplace for courts to supervise an offender as part of the sentencing process. Many of them have Anti Social Personality Disorder (ASPD). The focus of this article is how the work of specialist and/or problem solving courts can be informed by the insights of the psychology profession into the best practice in the treatment and management of people with ASPD. It is a legitimate purpose of legal work to consider and improve the well-being of the participants in the legal process. Programs designed specifically to deal with those with ASPD could be incorporated into existing Drug Courts, or implemented separately by courts to aid with reforming offenders with ASPD and in managing the re-entry of offenders into the community as part of their sentence. For the success of this initiative on the part of the court, ASPD will need to be specifically diagnosed and treated. Close co-operation between courts and psychologists is required to improve the effectiveness of court programs to treat people with ASPD and to evaluate their success.

Nangkha Nangdrik in the land of the Thunder Dragon : psychology, religion and the potential of mediation in the Kingdom of Bhutan

This article will consider the role that Alternative Dispute Resolution (‘Dham Kha Chen Ki Khendum’ or ‘Nangkha Nangdrik’) currently plays in resolving legal conflict in Bhutan. With a Constitution that has committed to the pursuit of Gross National Happiness, non-adversarial dispute resolution processes that promote continuing relationships and goodwill assume greater importance. One difficulty for Bhutan is that alternative dispute resolution procedures such as mediation (Dhum Drik) are being referred to in enactments of the Bhutanese National Council and National Assembly (bicameral parliament), without a shared understanding as to the characteristics and functionality of these procedures. This article will focus particularly on the current practice of mediation in Bhutan and investigate whether particular models of mediation are more suited to the Bhutanese context, given the particularities of Bhutanese culture, the search for gross national happiness, psychological understandings of happiness and the omnipresent influence of Mahayana Buddhism.

Arguing the Autopsy : mutual suspicion, jurisdictional confusion and the socially marginal

Vulnerable and marginalised populations are not only over-represented in the criminal justice system, but also in civil jurisdictions like the coronial system. Moreover, many of the personnel who deal with criminal matters, especially in rural and regional areas, are also those who manage the coronial death investigation. This movement back and forth between civil and criminal jurisdictions is difficult for the both professional personnel and the families, but especially for those families who may also have had dealings with these personnel in the criminal justice system, or who present as suspicious due to larger historical and global issues. While coronial legislation now allows families to raise cultural and religious concerns about the process, particularly to do with the autopsy of their loved one, this also requires them to identify themselves to police at the initial stage of the death investigation. This paper, part of a larger body of work on autopsy decision making, discusses the ways in which this information is gathered by police, how it is communicated through the system, the ways in which families are supported through the process, and the difficulties that ensue.

Competency and capacity : the legal and medical interface

Balancing the competing interests of autonomy and protection of individuals is an escalating challenge confronting an ageing Australian society. Legal and medical professionals are increasingly being asked to determine whether individuals are legally competent/capable to make their own testamentary and substitute decision-making, that is financial and/or personal/health care, decisions. No consistent and transparent competency/capacity assessment paradigm currently exists in Australia. Consequently, assessments are currently being undertaken on an ad hoc basis which is concerning as Australia’s population ages and issues of competency/capacity increase. The absence of nationally accepted competency/capacity assessment guidelines and supporting principles results in legal and medical professionals involved with competency/capacity assessment implementing individual processes tailored to their own abilities. Legal and medical approaches differ both between and within the professions. The terminology used also varies. The legal practitioner is concerned with whether the individual has the legal ability to make the decision. A medical practitioner assesses fluctuations in physical and mental abilities. The problem is that the terms competency and capacity are used interchangeably resulting in confusion about what is actually being assessed. The terminological and methodological differences subsequently create miscommunication and misunderstanding between the professions. Consequently, it is not necessarily a simple solution for a legal professional to seek the opinion of a medical practitioner when assessing testamentary and/or substitute decision-making competency/capacity. This research investigates the effects of the current inadequate testamentary and substitute decision-making assessment paradigm and whether there is a more satisfactory approach. This exploration is undertaken within a framework of therapeutic jurisprudence which promotes principles fundamentally important in this context. Empirical research has been undertaken to first, explore the effects of the current process with practising legal and medical professionals; and second, to determine whether miscommunication and misunderstanding actually exist between the professions such that it gives rise to a tense relationship which is not conducive to satisfactory competency/capacity assessments. The necessity of reviewing the adequacy of the existing competency/capacity assessment methodology in the testamentary and substitute decision-making domain will be demonstrated and recommendations for the development of a suitable process made.

Restorative justice: Making amends, repairing relationships and healing

Since the late 1970s, there has been a significant expansion in techniques for using mediated interactions between offenders and those affected by their behaviour. This trend began with juvenile justice conferencing, family group conferencing and Indigenous sentencing circles. The umbrella term used to describe these techniques and processes is ‘restorative justice’ (‘RJ’ to its fans and practitioners).Two important catalysts for this expansion were an increased awareness of the marginalisation of victims in the criminal justice system, and concerns over climbing recidivism rates.

The development of an effective and efficient dispute resolution processes for strata scheme disputes in peninsular Malaysia

Dispute resolution in strata schemes in Peninsular Malaysia should focus on more than just "settlement." The quality of the outcome, its sustainability and its relevance in supporting the basic principles of a good neighbourhood and self-governance in a strata scheme are also fundamental. Based on the comprehensive law movement, this thesis develops a theoretical framework for strata scheme disputes within the parameters of therapeutic jurisprudence, preventive law, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and problem-solving courts. The therapeutic orientation of this model offers approaches that promote positive communication between disputing parties, preserve neighbour relations and optimise people's psychological and emotional well-being.

The Queensland Indigenous alcohol diversion program : a health agency’s journey

Drug and alcohol diversion programs provide offenders with the opportunity to divert from the criminal justice or child safety systems, and enter into treatment to address their illicit drug or alcohol use. However, low participation by Indigenous Australians in diversion programs has been recognised as an issue, with Indigenous Australians being much less likely to be diverted into treatment (NIDAC 2009: 9). QIADP represents a unique opportunity to improve Indigenous access to diversion programs. QIADP is an Indigenous-specific alcohol diversion program in its final, third year as a pilot, with the evaluation due December 2009. Many lessons have been learnt by Queensland Health as to what works and doesn’t work in the provision of alcohol-related treatment with this population, including how partnerships with other governmental departments and NGOs can enhance the quality of treatment and ways to build clinical cultural competence in the workforce and programmatic system. This presentation shares the practical lessons QH has learnt in delivering alcohol treatment within an Indigenous-specific diversion program. This includes solutions that others may find useful for application elsewhere, such as the holistic range of treatment options found helpful, and the relationship issues to work through to support a partnership response.