Download files
Abstract
There exists a longstanding and growing interest in therapeutic jurisprudence (TJ) which spans over a quarter of a century. Over this time, TJ has found fertile ground in most Western criminal justice systems leading to many practical applications. On a conceptual level, however, we know very little about what constitutes a TJ approach or response in criminal justice. Proponents of TJ make broad claims about there being a healing power in law that should be harnessed but fail to explicitly state where this power lies, what form it takes, when and for whom it should be harnessed, or what “healing” might look like. There has also been lack of theorising about TJ and gender in criminal justice. This means that we know very little about how TJ reflects and/or contributes to gender relations in this context. This study examines these issues through a comparative multiple-case study design consisting of four case studies of drug court sites—two in Australia and two in Canada—to compare and contrast how TJ is given effect in different settings and to examine women’s experiences of TJ in these settings. The study utilises mixed research methods including: non-participant observation of drug court sessions and pre-court team meetings; semi-structured interviews with drug court professionals and women participants; and aggregate secondary data held by each court on participants. This study finds that what TJ provides cannot be read as contributing to healing for criminalised women because: there are a number of effects that the TJ approach engenders that are particularly troubling for women; and, there is no mechanism in TJ that requires it to pay attention to difference and take differences on board. The implications of these findings are discussed with reference to TJ on a general level and more specifically in relation to criminal justice.