Case 10
Searching for solutions to stop crime and deal with its underlying causes, new kinds of courts has been developing in the US. Called "problem–solving courts," they are designed to allow options besides incarceration to treat offenders while still considering victim and community safety. Begun in Miami in 1989 as a way to get drug addicts into treatment and out of overcrowded jails and courtrooms, hundreds of local communities have set up a variety of problem–solving courts.
Such a court in New York orders community service and alternative career training to prostitutes instead of jail time. In a mental health problem–solving court, the judge may use supervised medicine administration or living situations instead of incarceration for defendants who are mentally ill. In the Bronx, a problem–solving court deals exclusively with landlords and tenants with the express purpose of reducing homelessness. The judge focuses on the underlying problems that lead to eviction, such as mental illness, language problems, and lack of job skills. Delinquent tenants may be sent to the welfare office or enrolled in a homelessness prevention program and landlords are held to their responsibilities.
Problem–solving courts work with other criminal justice institutions and across disciplines to design appropriate interventions and to address underlying issues that result in criminal behavior. Judges add to their traditional roles aspects of social work, therapy, and fact–finding. In these courts, judges typically talk directly to the defendant, rather than talking through legal counsel. Communities often receive financial support from the US Department of Justice and from non–governmental agencies to set up the courts.
But, critics worry about the problem–solving courts. Over the years, sentencing in traditional courts has been so uneven that strict guidelines were imposed to restore consistency. Seeming to ignore that trend, problem–solving courts give judges not less, but more, discretion. There is also concern that the mostly middle–class and often politically–connected judges are imposing their values on people from different backgrounds. Judges in these courts are much more involved in defendants? lives than in regular courts.
In order to have their cases heard in a problem–solving court, defendants sign a waiver. Critics worry whether defendants fully understand their options and wonder if they are truly "knowing, voluntary, and intelligent." Further, choosing the problem–solving court seems to presume guilt, bypassing the possibility of innocence. Other worries relate to attorney roles ? both defense and prosecution – and appeal options with these courts. The public has been most critical of the apparently lenient handling of offenders in domestic violence problem–solving courts.