Making the abject: problem-solving courts, addiction, mental illness and impairment

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.