Implications of Therapeutic Jurisprudence for Judicial Satisfaction

• NCJ Number: 193053
• Journal: Court Review Volume: 37 Issue: 1 Dated: Spring 2000 Pages: 12-20
• Author(s): Deborah J. Chase; Peggy Fulton Hora
• Date Published: 2000
• Length: 9 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Survey
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: Downloaded December 19, 2001

Annotation

This document explores job satisfaction of judges who address treatment and recovery issues.

Abstract

Drug treatment courts focus on the participant’s recovery and law-abiding behavior rather than the merits of the pending case. This shifts the main focus from legal to therapeutic concerns and the roles of the drug treatment court professionals as well. This shift in role appears to benefit staff as well as litigants. Judges who work therapeutically seem to experience increased job satisfaction. Underlying this shift in focus is the belief that it will result in reduction of criminal behavior, savings in incarceration costs, and both tangible and intangible benefits to the community, the individual, and the individual’s family. The judge goes from being a detached, neutral arbiter to the central figure in the team, which is focused on the participant’s sobriety and accountability. Through frequent court appearances the judge sees the incredible changes a participant makes. The judge cannot help but be changed by this process. Job stress is the more common focus of research on judicial satisfaction. Many of the factors related to job stress are not as commonly observed in drug treatment court judges. Many have expressed a sense of pride in a job well done and a brighter outlook since taking the drug treatment court assignment. Family law court judicial officers work with a courtroom process that is quite different from that of the drug treatment court. Although originally conceived to be therapeutic in orientation, family law courts have not employed therapeutic principles due to increased caseloads of divorce, paternity, and district attorney child support cases. In a survey of judicial officers in drug treatment courts and family law courts, the greatest difference between these two was in their attitude toward the litigants. The drug treatment court judicial officers expressed a far more positive attitude toward those appearing before them; were more likely to believe litigants were trying to solve their problems; and felt more respected by the litigants. 7 tables, 56 footnotes