1. Chapter Six
Specialized Courts

2. Introduction
Specialized courts include drug courts, domestic violence courts, community courts, career criminal courts, etc.
They all target different problems but share a similar mission:
“to shift the focus from processing cases to achieving meaningful results for defendants by formulating creative, individually-tailored sentences”

3. Origins and Distinguishing Features
Specialized courts emerged in response to several factors
Goldstein’s concept of problem-oriented policing
Wilson and Kelling’s broken-windows theory
Argued that if minor problems are ignored, serious crime could take hold

4. Origins and Distinguishing Features
Historical Milestones
Philadelphia and Illinois implemented the first key steps in the specialized court movement
Dade County’s drug court opened in 1989
The first to sentence drug offenders to judicially-supervised drug treatment
1993 Midtown Community Court
First to combine punishment and assistance to offenders and victims

5. Origins and Distinguishing Features
In 1994 Congress passed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act
Authorized the Attorney General to fund drug courts across the country
Violence Against Women Act 1994
Provided funding to states and local communities to combat domestic violence
1995 Drug Courts Program Office
From , oversaw the creation of more than 275 drug courts

6. Origins and Distinguishing Features
By 1997 several states had started drug courts for juveniles
In 1999, the Office of Justice Programs funded nine “re-entry courts”
Assisted parolees in re-entering the community
Since 2000, problem-solving courts have continued their growth
Helping to redefine the role of the court
Courts in the News: Alternative Courts

7. Origins and Distinguishing Features
Focus on Outcomes
Traditional adjudication is concerned with process and punishment, not outcomes
Outcomes can include long-term prospects for the offender, as well as the effects of criminal sanctions on family members and relatives
Judicial Monitoring
Problem-solving court judges stay involved in cases from beginning to end

8. Origins and Distinguishing Features
Informed Decision-Making
In some community courts, on-site caseworkers can evaluate defendant’s needs for judges
Collaboration
Problem-solving courts can work with officials from public and private agencies
Nontraditional Roles
e.g. a movement from the adversarial system

9. Origins and Distinguishing Features
Systemic Change
Refers to the lessons problem-solving courts have learned and to the changes they urge other public agencies to make
Voluntary Participation
Defendants are generally given the choice to participate in specialized courts
Benefit: the defendant may get help not offered in traditional courts (e.g. drug treatment)
Drawback: “selection effect”

10. Origins and Distinguishing Features
Therapeutic Jurisprudence
Seeing law as a helping profession
Arose from the field of mental health law
Concerned with consequences on social relationships
e.g. in cases of domestic violence, therapeutic jurisprudence focuses on victim safety and offender accountability
Review Box 6-1: Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Principles of a Successful Domestic Violence Court

11. Origins and Distinguishing Features
Community Input
Courts have traditionally been cut off from the communities in which they are located
Specialized courts advocates realize benefits to community involvement
Helps identify, prioritize and solve local problems
Helps improve public trust in justice

12. Varieties of Specialized Courts
Specialized courts are being developed in response to a wide variety of crime problems
The definition of American criminal court appears to be changing
Problem-solving courts are moving away from adjudication to monitoring and service provision tasks

13. Varieties of Specialized Courts
Drug Courts
Courts and treatment officials work closer together in the drug court environment
Drug courts usually operate in one of two ways:
Divert offenders out of the criminal process by assigning them to treatment
Post-adjudication programs either defer sentencing or suspend it in exchange for completion of a treatment program

14. Varieties of Specialized Courts
Figure 6-1 Chesterfield County Drug Court Program

15. Varieties of Specialized Courts
Recent estimates indicate 800 drug treatment courts nationwide
Based on studies that have been conducted, drug courts appear effective
Belenko’s research
Recent analysis of 42 separate drug court evaluations
There is still a need for improved research design when evaluating drug court effectiveness

16. Varieties of Specialized Courts
Domestic Violence Courts
The failure of mandatory arrest and other intervention methods have led to the creation of domestic violence courts
Lexington County, South Carolina
New York State
Dedicated Judge
Resource Coordinator
On-Site Victim Advocate
Coordinated Community Response

17. Varieties of Specialized Courts
Evaluations suggest domestic violence courts can gain more convictions than traditional courts
Grover and colleagues concluded that the establishment of a court for domestic violence cases increased responsiveness of law enforcement
Also found offenders processed through domestic violence courts were 50% less likely to be arrested
Other studies are less supportive of these courts

18. Varieties of Specialized Courts
Community Courts
More general in terms of the problems they target and approaches taken
Emphasize partnering and problem-solving
The Midtown Community Court
There have been few evaluations in the effectiveness of community courts
Has prompted calls for more research

19. Varieties of Specialized Courts
Gun Courts
1994 Rhode Island creates the nation’s first gun court
Wanted to ensure tough sentences were handed down and delays minimized
Philadelphia opened its own gun court
Focus was on educating defendants on gun safety and rapid adjudication for repeat offenders and violators of court orders

20. Varieties of Specialized Courts
Many recently-formed gun courts focus on gun crimes committed by juveniles
Most are short-term programs that augment normal juvenile court proceedings
Common features include:
early intervention
short term and intensive programming
a focus on education
a collaboration of court personnel and law enforcement

21. Varieties of Specialized Courts
Sex Offense Courts
Advantageous because:
they require that judges have specialized knowledge concerning sex offenses
coordination between the court and other stakeholder agencies occurs
victim satisfaction is improved
Historically there has been a historical lack of coordination by the various officials involved in processing sex offenders

22. Varieties of Specialized Courts
January 2006 New York state
Three counties piloted specialized sex offense courts
Core elements of the courts include:
Keeping victims informed
Scheduling cases promptly
Having dedicated, trained judges
Supervising defendants continuously
Coordinating with probation departments
Providing court personnel and partners with education and training

23. Varieties of Specialized Courts
Homeless Courts
Used to resolve outstanding misdemeanor criminal warrants
Several of the homeless are content to remain homeless and want no part of a justice system intervention
Many of the homeless lack the resources to meeting the obligations associated with their criminal convictions

24. Varieties of Specialized Courts
Figure 6-3: Homeless Court Process Flowchart

25. Varieties of Specialized Courts
Mental Health Courts
Intended to bring the justice and mental health agencies together to provide services for mentally ill offenders
Few evaluations of mental health courts
Courts in the News: Special Veterans’ Courts

26. Varieties of Specialized Courts
Reentry Courts
Do not adjudicate new offenses
Provide oversight and support services to offenders reentering the community
Harlem Parole Reentry Court
Reentry courts are intended to pick up where parole has traditionally left off
Not much research on successes or failures

27. Success and Failure in Specialized Courts
Possible Threats
A Passing Fad
Various policies come and go, new research studies are published, new sources of funding emerge, etc.
Changing Courts for the Worse
Critics argue specialized courts have no legitimate legal foundation, are not neutral, and are unfair because treatment is threatened

28. Success and Failure in Specialized Courts
Insufficient Judicial Buy-In
While the majority of judges favor problem-solving, this does not mean they buy into the concept of specialized courts
Blurred Role Distinctions
Specialized courts can blur the lines between historically distinct criminal justice functions
Inadequate Empirical Support
Lack of research into specialized courts

29. Success and Failure in Specialized Courts
Soft on Crime
Do treatment, individualized sentences, judicial monitoring, and the like coddle offenders?
Voluntary Participation
Specialized courts won’t reach the offenders most in need
Court Challenges
People v. Avery
State v. Alexander

30. Success and Failure in Specialized Courts
Making Them Succeed
Three strategies offered by the Center for Court Innovation to help promote their continued expansion and development:
They need to be viewed differently from traditional courts
Specialized courts need to share resources with one another
They need some measure of support from officials in high-level positions