Abstract
The advent of ‘problem-solving courts’ (e.g. drug courts, mental health courts) is claimed by some to represent a significant shift in the administration of justice. Problem-solving courts purport to address the underlying social, medical and/or psychological issues that are often understood as driving certain populations’ contact with criminal justice systems. Although there is a large body of research examining the operation and efficacy of such courts, there is minimal critical research on how these courts have been conceptualized by governments as logical, suitable ‘solutions’ to both particular ‘problems’ in society and ‘problem populations’, and the various implications thereof. In this paper, we examine these issues through an adaptation of Australian post-structuralist theorist, Carol Bacchi’s theoretical framework. Bacchi argues that policy ‘problems’ do not precede policy interventions, but that ‘problems’ are instead constituted by and given meaning through implicit policy representations. In this paper we consider how two Australian problem-solving courts – Victoria’s Drug Court and the Assessment and Referral Court List for people with cognitive impairments or mental illness – have been conceptualized by Victoria’s Parliament to target their populations, the ‘problems’ they purport to address, and with what effects for targeted populations.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.