problem solving courts

PROBLEM SOLVING COURTS2011 NEW JUDGE ORIENTATIONARIZONA SUPREME COURT

Hon. Ronald A. WilsonSouth Tucson City Court

U.S. Supreme Court

“[Lawyers] must be legal architects, engineers, builders, and from time to time, inventors as well. We have served, and must continue to see our role, as problem solvers, harmonizers, and peacemakers, the healers – not the promoters – of conflict.”

Chief Justice Warren Burger, United States Supreme Court (1969-1986)(On April 13, 1993, retired Chief Justice Warren E. Burger presented the 1993 Judge Robert L. Taylor Lecture on the campus of the University of Tennessee in Knoxville.)

State Supreme Courts

On August 3, 2000 at the Conference of Chief Justices, 50:0 State Chief Justices voted to support “Problem-Solving Courts”

(Resolution 22, adopted 8-3-2000).

Deferred Prosecution or Diversion

Arizona Revised Statutes Title 9: Cities and Towns Chapter 4: General Powers Article 8: Miscellaneous 9-500.22 (Diversion) 9-499.07 (Home Detention)

Problem-Solving Courts

Reduce, Restore, Root Reduce Recidivism Restore the victim Address Root Causes

We can increase the likelihood of compliance with judicial orders by applying what we know about behavior to the way we do business in court.

Concepts

Therapeutic Jurisprudence How do law and mental health interact

Restorative Justice Repair the harm Change behavior of Defendant Restore the victim

Problem Solving All of the Above

Benefits

Focus on the root causes of criminal behavior.

Court can address and resolve complex social issues.

Resolution of old cases Reduce recidivism Improve community safety Reduce jail costs

Types of Problem Solving Courts

Community Courts Veterans Courts Drug Courts Mental Health Courts Homeless Courts DUI Courts Domestic Violence Courts Juvenile Courts Teen Courts Community Justice Boards

Role of the Court

Problem-solving courts are those in which courts participate in resolving the underlying problems that lead defendants to commit crime.

The court response is a proactive

approach to sentencing and sanctions.

Role of the Judge

Bridge builder Part of the process Part of the solution Outcomes matter Connect the dots

Change agent Visible & respected Able to span boundaries Strong communicator Skilled facilitator Consensus builder Politically astute

Rules to consider

Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 8 – Speedy trial Rule 9 – Presence of parties Rule 11 – Incompetence to stand trial Rule 14 - Arraignment Rule 17 – Guilty and No Contest Pleas Rule 32 – Post Conviction Relief Rule 33 – Criminal Contempt Rule 39 – Victims Rights

Victims Rights

The Arizona Constitution, Article 2, Section 2.1

A.R.S. 13-4401 through 13-4440 (1991) A.R.S. 13-804 through 13-809 A.R.S. 13-603.C A.R.S. 13-4201 A.R.S. 13-105.29 A.R.S. 13-105.16

Incentives and Sanctions

Evidence-based behavioral modification techniques

Positive reinforcement Wide range of incentives, sanctions

and consequences Beyond the bond book Use the statutes

Class 1,2,3 misdemeanors sentencing

Partnerships

Ongoing dialogue with agencies within your sphere of influence

Use experts to assist with solutions Bridge gaps between systems

Community Education

1. Courtroom as classroom2. Communication with other judges3. Courtroom belongs to the community4. Professional organizations can sponsor

educational programs5. Law Day6. Uses media7. Use technology

Judicial Challenges

Time management Case management Perceptions Education Crafting appropriate sanctions

Defendant Challenges

Engagement and understanding the process Candid about transgressions Treatment more difficult than regular punishment Duration of participation in proportion to the crime

Defense Attorney Challenges

Diminished the role of the attorney BUT Model Rules of Professional

Conduct, Rule 2.1 anticipates interdisciplinary behavior by lawyers.

“…[A] lawyer may refer not only to law but to other considerations such as moral, economic, social and political factors that may be relevant to the client’s situation.”

Prosecution Challenges

Fear – (politics, police and public) I am not soft on crime (‘hug a

thug’) Statistics “Gun notchers” Trained to put people in jail? Worldview? Narcissistic?

Financial Challenges

Reduction in revenue generated from fines!!

CONCLUSION

Conclusion

Our society must come first. Judicial educators must teach problem-

solving methods to more judges. Law schools need to refocus their

efforts.

Conclusion

Problem Solving Courts are the wave of the future: diminishing budgets, less resources for the courts, more creative thinking, interaction/collaboration with treatment

agencies, probation, etc community wants results

National OverviewAmerican Bar Association 2005

2,500+ problem solving courts 985 adult drug courts 386 juvenile drug courts 196 family drug courts 74 DUI courts 44 re-entry drug courts 65 Tribal Healing-to-Wellness courts 2 Campus drug courts 4 Federal District drug courts 16 re-entry courts 23 community courts 111 mental health courts 393 teen courts 141 domestic violence courts

Chief Justice Warren Burger

“[Lawyers] must be legal architects, engineers, builders, and from time to time, inventors as well. We have served, and must continue to see our role, as problem solvers, harmonizers, and peacemakers, the healers – not the promoters – of conflict.”

Chief Justice Warren Burger, United States Supreme Court (1969-1986)

(On April 13, 1993, retired Chief Justice Warren E. Burger presented the 1993 Judge Robert L. Taylor Lecture on the campus of the University of Tennessee in Knoxville.)

Resources

American Bar Association National Center for State Courts Center for Court Innovation Department of Justice

Bureau of Justice Assistance Office of Justice Programs

National Criminal Justice Reference Service Council of State Governments Justice

Center