Mental health courts have been subjected now to decades of research. Collectively, this body of research demonstrates that properly designed and implemented mental health courts can cost-effectively and safely reduce recidivism while improving the health and psychosocial functioning of mentally impaired offenders.
Many judicial officers are pressing for therapeutic jurisprudence approaches to be applied in mainstream court settings as well as problem solving courts. In that context it would be useful to know which problem-solving elements are efficacious for this cohort.
This blog draws on two of my recent papers (links below). A theme running through both papers is that courts should adhere to evidence-based practice because scarce resources should be directed where they will be most effective and best rehabilitative practice is sometimes counter-intuitive.
[For more of this story, written by Michelle Edgely, go to https://mainstreamtj.wordpress...g-mainstream-courts/]
Comments (0)