Specialized Courts: Effectiveness of Problem-Solving Courts in the US

This report provides an overview of specialized courts in the United States, focusing on their effectiveness and the need for such courts within the justice system. It defines specialized courts and highlights their role in facilitating speedy trials and ensuring justice. The report examines problem-solving courts as a key example, discussing drug courts, domestic violence courts, veteran treatment courts, and mental health courts. It analyzes the advantages of specialized courts, such as experienced judges and therapeutic approaches, and also discusses the disadvantages, including concerns about judicial discretion and the potential for leniency. The report reviews studies demonstrating the success of problem-solving courts in reducing recidivism, while also acknowledging criticisms related to judicial review and monitoring. The conclusion emphasizes the vital role of problem-solving courts in delivering justice in specific instances, but also acknowledges their limitations.

Running head- SPECIALIZED COURTS
Specialized Courts
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1Specialized Courts
A specialized court is described as a court with exclusive jurisdictions of one or more
than one specific field of law. The specialized courts are either an independent functioning
court or any creation by the administrative division of an existing court. The primary focus of
such establishments of specialized courts is for the motive of speedy trial and justice. The
specialized courts safeguard the independent functioning of justice. The primary aim of the
study is to understand the effectiveness of the specialized courts and the need for such
specialized court in the United States. Further, it provides a detailed account of the Problem
Solving courts functioned in the United States.
Specialization in Courts is a growing trend in the United States and many regions all
over the world. It is evident from the various reports that the creation of all such specialized
courts is for the tribunal to deal with cases like tax, property and environmental cases to
provide justice to the citizen and the non-governmental organisations. Specialization courts
include drug court, domestic violence courts, problem-solving courts, veterans treatment
courts, reentry courts and therapeutic courts (Huddleston, 2016). The Problem-solving courts
has been chosen as an example in order to understand the functioning of such specific
specialized courts. Problem-solving courts are a specialized court that deals with matters
relating to substance use or mental health disorders (Strong, Rantala & Kyckelhahn, 2016).
These kinds of courts have proved to be effective in order to provide an alternative judgment
for the adjudication upon allowing the accused towards detention with a reduced sentence
upon the criminal conviction. The main goal of such a court is rehabilitation and reduction in
the judgment by underlying a problem-solving approach to address the issue associated with
criminal conduct (Spivakovsky & Seear 2017). Various researches have shown that the
Problem Solving Courts are successful in reducing recidivism by increasing public safety
through the reformation of the offenders back in society. The powers of the court vary in
different jurisdictions. The problem-solving courts mostly deal with matters of the drug,

2Specialized Courts
mental health and domestic violence. The other kind of problem-solving courts focuses on the
needs of the individuals who have been convicted of gambling, prostitution, and also
experiencing homelessness. Community courts and restoration courts also fall under the
problem-solving courts.
Various studies have demonstrated that the proper functioning of the problem-solving
courts has resulted in the reduction of recidivism from society through retribution. A
traditional court mostly tends to focus upon finding the guilt of the convict, whereas the
specialized courts focus upon the therapeutic conduct for delivering justice. For example, the
drug court is associated with assisting individuals with substance use and provide leniency in
judgment by reducing the time of conviction and providing rehabilitation (Boldt, 2017). The
mental health courts deal with the offenders who are convicted concerning the commission of
crime due to some mental or psychological disorder. They aim at providing community-based
services to individuals suffering from such conditions. A study of the mental health courts in
Santa Barbara Country suggests that this kind of courts have been successful in the reduction
of the rearrests for new offences by the offenders by providing mental health consumer
services in the community. The probation violations are reduced by more than 60 per cent by
the establishments of such courts (Simon, Steel, & Lovrich, 2018). Veteran courts deal with
veterans suffering from mental health due to substance abuse. In recent years the number of
veteran courts has increased. Other courts such as the domestic violence court deal with
matter explicitly relating to the issues of the households by providing a solution for
reformation rather than imposing the sanction.
As we know, a coin has two sides; likewise this specific kind of courts have their
advantages as well as disadvantages. Their efficiency relies upon the conveyance of judgment
or the conveyance of justice by the courts. The advantages of such courts consist of the
delivery of judgment more effectively and efficiently as the judges of these courts are

3Specialized Courts
specialized in such fields with experience for handling such situations and provide a solution
that with a reformative approach. These kind of courts are successful in dealing with more
individual matters and have significantly reached a higher no of percentage for settlement for
the specialist judges having more authority. The benefits include a better understanding of the
issue by providing a better option of resolution to the offenders. Although the distinctions
made are suitable for the delivery of justice but there persists much criticism of such an
approach. This approach solely aims at therapeutic jurisprudence. As the nature of such
courts depends upon the personalized behaviour of the person, it fails to deliver justice in the
context of society. Many times a crime is done purposely by an offender who is a repetitive
criminal. These specialized courts can protect the criminal by reducing the conviction and
order for reformation. In some cases, detention is the right approach and reformation itself
does not help in the reduction of the crime. The convict can often save themselves from the
extent of the punishments due to such specialized courts. Another severe problem with such a
practice is proper judicial review and monitoring. The judgments delivered by such courts are
upon the discretion of the judges themselves. An evaluation of the North Liverpool
Community Justice centre found that there exists no difference in the reoffending rates as
compared to the people who had not got the benefit of a community program. However, it is
evident that probation services have undergone significant transformations with the
relationship of the offenders, so, the probation services play a vital role in it. It becomes
essential to understand the real nature of the relationship that became distant. However, with
new plans for the probation services, this trend can be reversed.
In conclusion, it is stated that the Problem-solving courts do play a vital role in the
delivery of justice but only in some instances. Problem-solving courts are somewhere serving
as a defence for defendants in most of the cases by reducing their conviction and providing
rehabilitation even though not necessary

4Specialized Courts
Reference
Boldt, R. C. (2017). Problem-solving courts. Reforming criminal justice: Pretrial and trial
processes, 3, 273-304
Huddleston, C. W. (2016). Painting the current picture: a national report card on drug courts
and other problem-solving court.
Simon, C. A., Steel, B. S., & Lovrich, N. P. (2018). Courts. State and Local Government and
Politics: Prospects for Sustainability (2nd Ed.)..
Spivakovsky, C., & Seear, K. (2017). Making the abject: Problem-solving courts, addiction,
mental illness and impairment. Continuum, 31(3), 458-469.
Strong, S. M., Rantala, R. R., & Kyckelhahn, T. (2016). Census of problem-solving courts,
2012. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
Bureau of Justice Statistics.