Search

Although therapeutic jurisprudence ("TJ") is increasingly well-established internationally, particularly within the United States of America ("US"), to date it remains relatively unacknowledged within the United Kingdom ("UK"). This article will explore the opportunities presented within contemporary UK society for the greater promotion, and eventual mainstreaming, of TJ. It will also consider the challenges faced during this process and how best to overcome these. Its first key area of focus will be upon the potential role of legal education in the UK in educating law students (and academics) about TJ, considering which approaches are likely to be most effective in incorporating TJ perspectives, at what stage this should occur and to what extent TJ is likely to impact on the existing curricula at a time when proposed changes relating to entry into the legal profession are heavily influencing the work of Law Schools. The article will then move on to consider the receptiveness of the UK legal profession to the TJ paradigm in light of recent attempts to move to a competency-based approach to practice and to reconceptualise professionalism to meet the challenges of increasing fragmentation and corporatisation. The third key area it will explore is the UK's recent plans to reintroduce problem-solving courts ("PSCs") into its criminal justice system. The authors will discuss the downfall of the six UK Drug Court ("DC") pilots originally established in 2005 theorising upon their failures and reflecting upon whether the current UK criminal justice system is truly able to support a fresh round of PSC initiatives. The article will end with recommendations for ways in which the international TJ community should begin the process of mainstreaming TJ within the UK. It will conclude that there are currently significant opportunities to be utilised, but that this requires significant commitment and mobilisation amongst existing TJ scholars and practitioners., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

As forensic psychiatry and forensic psychology have grown and matured, the range of specialized services provided by each has expanded. In addition to traditional services such as forensic mental health assessments in criminal, family, and civil contexts, forensic specialists are now involved in delivering services in the community that include (in the criminal justice context) assessment for diversion into specialized probation or problem-solving courts, rehabilitation needs upon reentry (including specialized parole), and risk assessment for particular populations such as sexual offenders. Specialized forensic treatment services include those provided to clients under the jurisdiction of problem-solving courts or parole/probation. Similar specialized assessment and treatment services may be provided for juveniles. The nature of such service needs underscores the importance of the university-based forensic clinic as one source of specialized forensic services in the community. Such clinics are based in universities, directed by supervising faculty, and offer services provided in part by forensic trainees (psychiatric residents and forensic fellows; psychology doctoral students, interns, and post-doctoral fellows). The structure and operations of such clinics are described, with different models provided. Implications for specialized training, forensic practice, and research are discussed., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The management of individuals with mental illnesses sometimes requires involuntary hospitalization. The Israel Mental Health Act requires that cases of involuntary psychiatric hospitalization (IPH) be periodically reviewed by the district psychiatric committee. The discussion in the committee often leads to debate regarding the need for an IPH potentially depriving the patient of his freedom. Little is known about the way in which the psychiatrists and attorneys on these committees arrive at their decisions. The present study was designed to examine the views of future doctors and attorneys concerning cases of possible IPH to determine whether their decisions would be influenced by their respective professional educational backgrounds., Methods: After compiling demographic data, we asked 170 students from each of the two disciplines what their decision would be in two hypothetical cases that dealt with the question of a prolongation of a psychiatric hospitalization. Questionnaires examining social distance and possible stigmatizing views concerning psychiatric patients were also distributed and collected., Results: The response rates for the medical and law students were, respectively, 90% and 85%. We found no differences between the medical and law students regarding their views on prolongation of a psychiatric hospitalization. This was consistent regardless of whether the hospitalization was against the patient's will or according to his wish and against the treating physicians' advice. We also found that the medical and law students had similar general views regarding psychiatric patients, but that the latter evidenced greater social distance than the former., Conclusions: Academic background and socialization were not found to influence the decisions of students regarding IPH. Educational programs and exposure to psychiatric patients during law studies are proposed to lessen psychiatric stigma and promote better understanding between members of the two disciplines., (Copyright © 2011. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)