Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 2:31 am
Time: 2:31 am
Results for domestic violence courts
9 results foundAuthor: Robinson, Amanda Title: Measuring What Matters in Specialist Domestic Violence Courts Summary: Using data from seven specialist domestic violence courts (SDVCs) in England and Wales, it is argued that these relatively new institutions need to re-orient themselves away from typical criminal justice performance measures (such as arrests, prosecutions and convictions) and towards measuring what matters to the service users themselves (in this case, victims of domestic violence). Details: Cardiff: Cardiff University, School of Social Sciences, 2008. 18p. Source: Working Paper; 102 Year: 2008 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 117775 Keywords: Domestic Violence Courts |
Author: Labriola, Melissa Title: National Portrait of Domestic Violence Courts Summary: A growing number of criminal courts nationwide handle domestic violence cases on separate calendars, termed domestic violence courts. There are now 208 confirmed domestic violence courts across the U.S. More than 150 similar projects have been established internationally. Some domestic violence courts emerged in the context of the broader “problem-solving court” movement and share characteristics with other specialized courts, such as separate dockets and specially trained judges. However, the origins of domestic violence courts are also distinct, growing out of the increased attention afforded domestic violence matters by the justice system over the past 30 years. This study explores how criminal domestic violence courts have evolved, their rationale, and how their operations vary across the U.S. Details: New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2009. 161p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 117636 Keywords: Domestic ViolenceDomestic Violence CourtsFamily ViolenceIntimate Partner Violence |
Author: Blagg, Harry Title: Problem-Oriented Courts Summary: This paper addresses a number of issues linked to the emergence of problem-oriented courts. Problem-oriented courts form part of an emerging judicial sphere where the traditional focus on legal process is balanced with concern for therapeutic outcomes. Expressed simply, problem-oriented courts seek to use the authority and structure of the courts to further therapeutic goals and enhance the performance of agencies involved in delivering court mandated services. Problem-oriented courts attempt to facilitate a team approach and encourage close collaboration between agencies involved in the justice process. The problem-oriented court acts as the ‘hub’ connecting various ‘spokes’, such as drug and alcohol treatment agencies, community based corrections, probation services and domestic violence agencies, forming a holistic and integrated approach. This approach encourages magistrates and judges to take a pro-active and overtly leading role in the creation of better, well coordinated services for clients. Supporters of problem-oriented courts maintain that such courts sit outside the traditional punishment paradigm, being more concerned with treatment and rehabilitation outcomes. The orientation of the court is neatly encapsulated in the notion of ‘forward looking’ as opposed to ‘backward looking’ forms of justice – that is, sentencing practices should be geared towards encouraging positive future behaviour rather then simply punishing past actions. The future impact of problem-oriented courts on the ways the criminal justice as a whole deals with offending linked to issues such as drug and alcohol use, mental health, homelessness and social exclusion could prove to be far reaching. Moreover the problem-oriented approach – and the philosophies of therapeutic jurisprudence and, to a lesser extent, restorative justice that inform the approach – may influence the orientation of mainstream courts. The approach is largely in its infancy in Australia. There is no settled theory (although a number of theories vie for relevance) and no unified template describing how a problem-oriented court should operate. Working practices vary according to the nature of the problem the court has been developed to deal with. The long-term benefits of the problem-oriented approach and its implications for the criminal justice system remain the subject of debate, both within the judiciary and within the network of agencies a problem-oriented approach binds together to work collectively on a particular problem. Problem-oriented courts can include community or neighbourhood courts, family and domestic violence courts, mental health courts, drug courts and alcohol courts. However, the problem-oriented approach is also being used by some magistrates in general courts when dealing with particular groups of offenders. This is particularly the case where a magistrate’s court has become the site for specialist treatment and diversionary services, such as Western Australia’s courtbased drug diversion initiatives. This paper excludes discussion of Aboriginal Courts which have been extensively considered by the Law Reform Commission as part of its Aboriginal Customary Law Project. Problem-oriented courts have not emerged in a vacuum, but in response to the challenges posed by a number of seemingly intractable urban social problems (drug use, alcohol, family and domestic violence, mental illness, anti-social behaviour, fear of crime, and problems associated with ‘hyper-marginalised’ groups) apparently impervious to traditional remedies and solutions. They also reflect frustration with the often fragmented and ad hoc response of traditional justice structures, cultures and processes. Some courts, such as community or neighbourhood courts, have emerged in response to claims that the courts are out of touch with the concerns of local communities and have been mandated to directly involve local people in the delivery of justice. Problem-oriented courts have been influenced by the philosophies of restorative justice and therapeutic jurisprudence. While, as will be demonstrated later, the two philosophies cannot simply be collapsed together, they do share a common commitment to ‘humanising’ the justice process, closely integrating concerns for individual and social change into the legal process, and providing ‘forward looking’ rather than ‘backward looking’ justice outcomes. This latter concern in particular represents a paradigm shift in the way justice is conceived: less concerned with simply judging past actions than with affecting change in individuals and social contexts to ensure crime and victimisation is prevented in the future. Besides the various philosophies vying for influence in the courts, the problem-oriented court has become the site for new hybrid techniques for engaging with the needs and problems of offenders. Since the focus of problem-oriented courts extends beyond applying the law, there is a need for behavioural techniques and treatments suited to the new environment. Intervention techniques such as motivational interviewing and brief interventions, discussed later, borrowed from addiction counselling, are emerging as intervention tools within problem-oriented courts because they claim positive results within a short timeframe. Problem-oriented courts are not simply a new type of specialist court. Details: Perth: Law Reform Commission of Western Australia, 2008. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Project 96: Accessed July 7, 2011 at: http://www.lrc.justice.wa.gov.au/2publications/reports/P96-BlaggRP.pdf Year: 2008 Country: Australia URL: http://www.lrc.justice.wa.gov.au/2publications/reports/P96-BlaggRP.pdf Shelf Number: 121998 Keywords: Domestic Violence CourtsDrug CourtsMental Health CourtsProblem-Oriented Courts (Australia)Sentencing |
Author: Western Australia. Law Reform Commission Title: Court Intervention Programs: Final Report Summary: This final report is divided into six chapters. Chapter One explains the Commission’s approach to reform, in particular, the need for legislative and policy reform to support the continued operation of court intervention programs and the Commission’s guiding principles for reform. Chapter Two (which contains the majority of the Commission’s recommendations) deals with the legal and policy issues that are relevant to all court intervention programs. Specific recommendations dealing with court intervention programs addressing drug and alcohol dependency are discussed in Chapter Three. Chapter Four considers recommendations in relation to mental impairment court intervention programs and Chapter Five considers recommendations in relation to family violence court intervention programs. Finally, recommendations in relation to general court intervention programs are contained in Chapter Six. The Final Report is intended to be read in conjunction with the Commission’s Consultation Paper, which describes how various court intervention programs operate and provides the research and analysis that support the Commission’s final recommendations. In order to avoid unnecessary duplication, the Final Report sets out the Commission’s conclusions and fi nal recommendations without repeating all of the descriptive material in the Consultation Paper. The Commission has made a total of 37 recommendations for reform in this Final Report. A list of recommendations is contained in Appendix A. For ease of reference, a list of recommendations that require legislative amendment is set out in Appendix B. Details: Perth: Law Reform Commission of Western Australia, 2009. 152p. Source: Internet Resource: Project No. 96: Accessed July 7, 2011 at: http://www.lrc.justice.wa.gov.au/2publications/reports/P96-FR.pdf Year: 2009 Country: Australia URL: http://www.lrc.justice.wa.gov.au/2publications/reports/P96-FR.pdf Shelf Number: 121999 Keywords: Court ReformDomestic Violence CourtsDrug CourtsMental Health CourtsProblem-Oriented Courts (Australia)Sentencing |
Author: Gennette, Karen Title: Bennington County Integrated Domestic Violence Docket Project: Outcome Evaluation Summary: The Bennington County Integrated Domestic Violence Docket (IDVD) Project was initiated in September, 2007, as a special docket within the Bennington County Criminal/Family Division Courts. The goal of the IDVD project was to provide an immediate response to domestic violence events by coordinating Family and Criminal Division cases. Dedicated to the idea of One Family, One Judge, the IDVD Project was designed to allow a single judge, one day each week, to have immediate access to all relevant information regardless of the traditional docket and to gather all appropriate players at the table regardless of any traditionally limited roles. The IDVD Project focused on: 1) protection and safety for victims and their children as well as other family members; 2) providing immediate access to community services and resources for victims, their children, and offenders to help overcome the impact of prior domestic abuse and prevent future abuse; and 3) providing an immediate and effective response to non-compliance with court orders by offenders. Details: Northfield Falls, VT: Vermont Center for Justice Research, 2011. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 3, 2012 at: http://www.vcjr.org/reports/reportscrimjust/reports/idvdreport_files/IDVD%20Final%20Report.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.vcjr.org/reports/reportscrimjust/reports/idvdreport_files/IDVD%20Final%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 125144 Keywords: Domestic Violence (Vermont)Domestic Violence CourtsFamily ViolenceIntimate Partner Violence |
Author: Schlueter, Max Title: Bennington County Integrated Domestic Violence Docket Project: Outcome Evaluation. Final Report Summary: The Bennington County Integrated Domestic Violence Docket (IDVD) Project was initiated in September, 2007, as a special docket within the Bennington County Criminal/Family Division Courts. The goal of the IDVD project was to provide an immediate response to domestic violence events by coordinating Family and Criminal Division cases. Dedicated to the idea of One Family, One Judge, the IDVD Project was designed to allow a single judge, one day each week, to have immediate access to all relevant information regardless of the traditional docket and to gather all appropriate players at the table regardless of any traditionally limited roles. The IDVD Project focused on: 1) protection and safety for victims and their children as well as other family members; 2) providing immediate access to community services and resources for victims, their children, and offenders to help overcome the impact of prior domestic abuse and prevent future abuse; and 3) providing an immediate and effective response to non-compliance with court orders by offenders. Details: Northfield Falls, VT: Vermont Center for Justice Research, 2011. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 25, 2012 at: http://www.vcjr.org/reports/reportscrimjust/reports/idvdreport.html Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.vcjr.org/reports/reportscrimjust/reports/idvdreport.html Shelf Number: 126800 Keywords: Domestic Violence (Vermont, U.S.)Domestic Violence CourtsFamily ViolenceProblem-Solving CourtsVictims of Domestic Violence |
Author: Adler, Robin Title: Domestic Violence Case Processing in Vermont 2004 -2008 Summary: In the criminal courts, domestic violence is best measured by domestic assault charges and violations of abuse order charges. This report examines the district court case processing and sentencing of these offenses during the study period of 2004 to 2008. Key findings: - A majority of convictions are for the same category of offense (domestic assault or violation of abuse orders) as the original charge. Ninety-nine percent of felony relief from abuse order convictions are for a violation of an order. - Race is not a statistically significant factor in determining which defendants are sentenced to incarceration for domestic assault. Women, however, are more likely to be sentenced to incarceration. - The Counties vary in their approach to sentencing domestic assault and violations of abuse orders. The county of conviction is statistically significant in determining which defendants are incarcerated for domestic assault. Details: Northfield Falls, VT: Vermont Center for Justice Research, 2011. 17p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 11, 2013 at: http://www.vcjr.org/reports/reportscrimjust/reports/dvcaseprocess.html Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.vcjr.org/reports/reportscrimjust/reports/dvcaseprocess.html Shelf Number: 127572 Keywords: Case ProcessingDomestic Violence (Vermont)Domestic Violence CourtsProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Labriola, Melissa Title: Testing the Efficacy of Judicial Monitoring: A Randomized Trial at the Rochester, New York Domestic Violence Courts Summary: This report presents findings from the first ever randomized controlled trial testing the efficacy of judicial monitoring with domestic violence offenders. Overall, the results did not show that judicial monitoring lower recidivism. However, offenders assigned to monitoring were more likely than those not monitored to believe that they understood their obligations, that there would be consequences for noncompliance, and that the consequences would be severe; and such perceptions were associated with increased program compliance. Details: New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2012. 88p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 5, 2015 at: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/Testing_Efficacy_Judicial_Monitoring.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/Testing_Efficacy_Judicial_Monitoring.pdf Shelf Number: 136681 Keywords: Domestic Violence Domestic Violence CourtsJudicial Monitoring Offender Monitoring Problem-Solving Courts |
Author: Centre for Justice Innovation Title: Problem-solving Courts: An Evidence Review Summary: Problem-solving courts put judges at the centre of rehabilitation. Generally operating out of existing courts, problem-solving courts yoke together the authority of the court and the services necessary to reduce reoffending and improve outcomes. This paper reviews the research on problem-solving courts and finds that, when used correctly, they can reduce reoffending and cut costs. Coming at a time when both the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice have expressed an interest in problem-solving, this review is designed to inform the development of government policy and, more importantly, to help shape the practice developed within pilots in England and Wales. What does the evidence tell us? There are many different kinds of problem-solving courts, each specialising in tackling a different need, type of crime, or even a different area. Looking at the evidence for different forms of court, we found: Drug courts: The evidence on adult drug courts is strong. It suggests that they are effective at reducing substance misuse and reoffending. They are particularly effective with offenders who present a higher risk of reoffending. However, the evidence on juvenile drug courts is negative. It suggests they have either minimal or harmful impacts on young offenders. Family drug and alcohol courts: The evidence on family drug and alcohol courts (and the related family treatment courts) is good. It suggests that they are effective in tackling parental substance misuse and can reduce the number of children permanently removed from their families. Mental health courts: The evidence on mental health courts is good. High-quality international evidence suggests that mental health courts are likely to reduce reoffending, although they may not directly impact offenders’ mental health. Domestic violence courts: The evidence on the impact of problem-solving domestic violence courts on outcomes for victims,such as victim safety and satisfaction, is good. The evidence on their ability to reduce the frequency and seriousness of a perpetrator reoffending is promising. This is encouraging when set against the lack of other effective options for reducing reoffending by perpetrators of domestic violence. Community courts: The international evidence that community courts reduce reoffending and improve compliance with court orders is promising. However, the evidence of their impact in England and Wales is mixed (though drawing conclusions from a single pilot site is difficult). We also looked at evidence on effective ways of working with women and young adults in the justice system. While problem-solving courts working with these groups are a new idea and little direct evidence is available on their effectiveness, the evidence suggests that there is potential for courts for these groups to improve outcomes if they draw from existing good practice. Why do problem-solving courts work? As well as looking at whether problem-solving courts work, we also looked at research which seeks to understand how they work. We found two main themes: Procedural fairness: evidence shows that perception of fair treatment leads to better compliance with court orders. Effective judicial monitoring is strongly associated with effectiveness. It relies on clear communication and certainty. Details: London: The Centre, 2016. 46p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 17, 2017 at: http://justiceinnovation.org/portfolio/problem-solving-courts-an-evidence-review/ Year: 2016 Country: International URL: http://justiceinnovation.org/portfolio/problem-solving-courts-an-evidence-review/ Shelf Number: 146967 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity CourtsDomestic Violence CourtsDrug CourtsFamily and Alcohol CourtsMental Health CourtsProblem-Solving CourtsRecidivismReoffending |