Problem-Solving Courts: Innovative Solutions to Improve Outcomes

When people think about the justice system in the United States, they probably think about scenes from shows like Law and Order — with imposing courthouses, intimidating courtrooms, stern and impatient judges, overworked or overzealous attorneys, caricature defendants, and relentless focus on long and harsh sentences.

The truth, of course, is much more complex and varied. Yes, there are criminal courts where the focus is guilt and innocence, prison or freedom. But over recent decades, different kinds of courts have come to the fore in both state and federal judicial systems. Problem-solving courts are informed by our knowledge of the connections between poverty, mental illness, substance abuse, and crime, and they attempt to use innovative methods to help defendants avoid the revolving jailhouse door of conviction-incarceration-release-recidivism-reincarceration. They include drug courts, reentry courts, and veterans courts, among others, and they might employ alternative methods like trauma-informed practices or a restorative justice approach. Problem-solving courts bring to bear the expertise of judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, probation officers, mental health professionals, social scientists, and other specialists in efforts to achieve better outcomes for defendants, victims, and communities. In doing so, they show a different side of the courts than what we see on television — one that works to serve the public well.

This edition of Judicature is devoted to articles about various types of problem-solving courts and efforts to improve outcomes for those whose life circumstances and challenges have led them to court. You’ll read about the innovative BRIDGE pilot drug court initiative in the District of South Carolina; an eye-opening description of the links between trauma and the juvenile justice system and the influence judges may have on the experiences of young people in court; the Youth Sentencing and Reentry Project in Pennsylvania assisting juveniles charged as adults for serious offenses; an overview of the large and growing restorative justice movement; a “call to action” for greater judicial involvement in efforts to lower the recidivism rate of federal defendants under supervised release following incarceration; and a trifecta of innovative programs in Newark, New Jersey, aimed at rehabilitating formerly incarcerated individuals. You’ll also read some of the criticisms of problem-solving courts and a perspective on what radical change in the justice system could look like.

Our judicial system cannot function without the trust and confidence of the public. Problem-solving courts can inspire that essential trust and confidence by demonstrating innovation, understanding, commitment, and determination to improve the outcomes of the criminal justice system for the benefit of defendants, victims, and the public at large. We know the system isn’t perfect. And until it is, we can be grateful that so many judges, lawyers, court professionals, and care providers are working hard to make it better.

Paul W. Grimm is the David F. Levi Professor of the Practice of Law and Director of the Bolch Judicial Institute at Duke Law School.