Abstract
Previous research and commentary indicates that some judicial officers may be reluctant to apply therapeutic jurisprudence principles in court, perhaps because of a perception that therapeutic judging requires a significant departure from conventional practice. This Brief investigates in-court judicial practice through a selection of sentencing remarks for serious criminal offences. The analysis shows how everyday judicial practices can be consistent with the principles of therapeutic jurisprudence, and indicates that judicial officers are already adopting an approach to judging that can be regarded as therapeutic to some extent.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: 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.
