Written by - Written by Robert V Wolf 2007 This publication was supported by Grant No 2005-PP-CX-K0008 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance The

Written by - Written by Robert V Wolf 2007 This publication...

This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 15 pages.

Written by Robert V. Wolf 2007 This publication was supported by Grant No. 2005-PP-CX-K0008 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime. Points of view and opinions in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily repre- sent official positions or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. About the Author Robert V. Wolf is director of communications at the Center for Court Innovation. Acknowledgements Appreciation is extended to the following individuals who reviewed and commented on earlier versions of these principles: Pam Casey, National Center for State Courts; Cait Clarke, consultant, former director of the National Defender Leadership Institute; William F. Dressel, The National Judicial College; John Goldkamp, Temple University; C. West Huddleston III, National Association of Drug Court Professionals; Steven Jansen, National District Attorneys Association; Wendy Lindley, Orange County (California) Superior Court; Judy Harris Kluger, New York State Unified Court System; Timothy Murray, Pretrial Justice Institute; and Carol Roberts, Ramsey County (Minnesota) Community Corrections. The author would also like to thank Liberty Aldrich, Greg Berman, Carol Fisler, A. Elizabeth
Image of page 1
Griffith, Julius Lang, Adam Mansky, Preeti P. Menon, Kim Norris, Valerie Raine, Al Siegel, Carolyn Turgeon, and Chris Watler for their input. Problem-solving justice can trace its theoretical roots to innovations in policing, particularly community and problem-oriented policing, which attempted to replace traditional law enforcement’s focus on responding to individual offenses with a focus on identifying and addressing patterns of crime, ameliorating the underlying conditions that fuel crime, and engaging the community as an active partner. 1 In the 1990s, these new policing strategies helped inspire similar approaches in the rest of the criminal justice system, helping give rise to innovations like commu- nity prosecution, community courts, and problem-solving probation. These new experiments shared an emphasis on data analysis, community engagement, crime prevention, and problem solving. At their core was the idea that it was no longer enough just to arrest, process, and adjudicate an offender, but law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges, and probation officers also needed to try to reduce recidivism, improve public confidence in justice, and prevent crime down the road. These ideas influenced not only community courts but the other specialized courts—drug, domestic violence, reentry, mental health courts—that emerged in the United States in the 1990s. It was while describing these various court initia- tives that New York State’s chief judge, Judith S. Kaye, catapulted the idea of “prob- lem-solving justice” to a national audience. Kaye, in a column in Newsweek in 1999,
Image of page 2
Image of page 3

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture