Problem Solving Courts
Introduction
Problem-solving courts are specialized courts that solve particular issues in criminal justice. In the recent past, problem-solving courts have developed rapidly in the United States as part of the criminal court system. These courts include the drug courts, domestic violence courts, reentry courts, and the veteran treatment courts. They deal with issues such as drugs, family dysfunctions, and domestic violence, among other problems. The first problem-solving court to be established was in Dade County, which was a drug court to solve drug issues in the community. Problem-solving courts are different from traditional courts in that they use judicial authority to address chronic social problems in the given area.
Further, their function is above adjudication of cases. In this case, most of them tend to change the behavior of lawbreakers to align them with the interest of society. By trying to change the behavior of the defendants, problem-solving courts provide judicial supervision of therapeutic treatment. Besides, problem-solving courts differ from traditional courts in that they work together with community groups, social service providers, and the criminal justice bodies to achieve a specific outcome in the community (Dorf & Fagan, 2003). Problem-solving courts majorly look for social outcomes such as increased sobriety, safer and secure families, low recidivism, among other positive outcomes. The rise of problem-solving courts in various states and territories has resulted in a faster rate of criminal justice and the shaping of behaviors in society. These courts are often designed to offer positives areas outcomes for victims, organizations, and offenders such as reduction of recidivism or creation of the safer communities system change. Problem-solving courts do promote reform in how the government responds to problems such as drug addiction and other forms of mental illness.
Literature review
In the recent past, the number of problem-solving courts has risen significantly in various states in the United States. According to the Census of problem-solving courts conducted in 2016, there are approximately 3, 052 such courts in the United States (Farajiha & Saber, 2020). Among them are drug courts, which are the most common with others, such as mental health and domestic courts. In many states, community courts have been adopted to help solve petty issues at the ground levels. The primary goal of problem-solving courts is to create a positive outcome that is beneficial to victims, offenders, and society. Problems solving courts have proven record in significantly reducing the rate of recidivism. According to the national association of drug court professionals, 70% of the defendants do finish these programs, and 75% are not rearrested with two years. This is an indication of the effectiveness of these courts in helping such victims if the crimes in changing their lives. By creating such outcomes, problem-solving courts makes the community safer and reduce the rate of recidivism in society. Another objective of problem-solving courts is to enhance reforms and create a better way in which the government responds to social problems such as substance abuse and mental health (Casey & Rottman, 2005). Problem-solving courts have been effective and efficient. Based on the National Association of Drug Court Professionals report, the courts have significantly reduced recidivism rates whereby 70% of the defendants have undergone through the courts and from which 75% have not been rearrested after two years (Farajiha & Saber, 2020). This shows that the emergence of problem-solving courts in various states and territories has resulted in a faster rate of criminal justice and the shaping of behaviors in society.
Research Questions
- How effective are problem-solving courts?
- What outcomes do problem-solving courts deliver to society?
- Do drug courts help change offenders’ behavior?
Data Source
The above research questions will be answered based on various data sources from different relevant sources. The study will use data from the Census of Problem Solving Courts compiled in 2016, data from the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, and 2019 Criminal Justice department data. Further, research will be conducted to collect raw data from the Dade County problem-solving court.
Research Design
The research is a quantitative survey that will be conducted using questionnaires given to those working in the Dade courthouse. The target sample is the employees in the court who will be given questionnaires for those who want to remain anonymous. Open-ended interview questions will be given to those who can respond immediately, such as problem-solving court judges, since they are always busy. In doing so, the responses will be tallied to investigate the best probable means of solving court problems from different perspectives.
Ethical issues
The aspect of ethics in the research will be considered. During the research process, the respondents will be addressed in terms of anonymously. They will not be expected to indicate their names anywhere in the questionnaires for ethical purposes. Besides, the researchers will be given the freedom of existing the study at any point that they feel is convenient for them. During the investigation, the participants will be informed of the research intention. They will be assured that the information that they will provide will only be for this study and will not be used anywhere except for the study. Lastly, the research participants will have to be fully informed about the purpose of the survey before commencing the study.
Depended and independents variables
The study dependent variable will be factors of the problems solving court that do varies with the other elements. The dependent variable includes factors of study that do change from one situation or scenario to the other. In contrast, the independent variable involves a factor that remained relatively constant over the investigation and across the respondents. The dependents variable includes factors such as the nature of the problem and person. Independents variables include the court.
Methodological Elements
In the research, various methodological elements and data analysis techniques will be used. Descriptive and prescriptive data analysis methods will be applied. Five methodological factors such as construct validity, internal validity, operationalization, and content validity and Hawthorne effect will be used in the research. The integration of the above will compose the strength and validity of the study, thus ensuring that the outcomes are factual and valid.
The research involves various people, such as judges, ex-convicts, offenders, and victims. Further, those who run Problem-solving court programs meant to help in reformation are also engaged. There are no notable risks involved since the response will remain anonymous. However, all participants will lose time while the judges may respond based on previous cases.
Conclusion
Problem-solving courts like the drug and the mental health courts work in engaging the community in addresses the underlying conditions that work to fuel crime. Today numerous courts are testing new approaches to severe cases where social, human, and legal problems do intersect. But long with these courts, problem-solving justices is also about taking the path to scales. Embedded in the centralized courthouses such as the Bronze community solutions, Brooklyn justice in states and the Newark community solutions each tend to handles thousands of cases each year offerings services and community-based alternatives to jails and erroneous fines. The works of the problems solving courts surround solving through the implementation of ambitious projects and offering a more extensive range of customized training and technical help to the courthouses. Problem-solving courts have proved to be effective and efficient in achieving justice outcomes that benefit people in society. However, the problems solving courts differ from the traditional courts in that they are designed for particular dates, and dockets are also dedicated to addressing one kind of offenses. Through such courts, offenders and victims have undergone special programs that reform behaviors and make a better society. By creating such outcomes, problem-solving courts makes the community safer and reduce the rate of recidivism in society. Problem-solving courts have enhanced reforms and create a better way in which the government responds to social problems such as substance abuse and mental health. It is, therefore, logical to argue that more problem-solving courts should be established in society.
References
Casey, P. M., & Rottman, D. B. (2005). Problem-solving courts: Models and trends. Justice System Journal, 26(1), 35-56.
Dorf, M. C., & Fagan, J. A. (2003). Problem-solving courts: From innovation to institutionalization. Am. Crim. L., Rev., 40, 1501.
Farajiha, M., & Saber, M. (2020). Problem-solving courts Principles in the light of comparative studies. Comparative Law Researches, 23(4), 91-126.