Seeing the Forest Through the Trees: Thinking Critically about Mental Health Courts

John A. Bozza, Court of Common Pleas, Erie, Pa

Abstract

The almost universal acceptance of the problem-solving court concept by both the courts and the academic community provides a good example of the hazards of the bandwagon effect on the de-velopment of public policy. The proponents of therapeutic juris-prudence have successfully promoted the adoption of these pro-grams by repeating and then having others repeat a mantra of success that grossly belies reality and ignores the compelling is-sues they raise. Not surprisingly, this has led to the develop-ment of an extensive bureaucracy fueled almost entirely by fed-eral money and encouraged by cheerleaders entrenched in the self-serving subculture of therapeutic jurisprudence.

Unfortunately, mental health courts, like other problem-solving courts and, in particular, drug courts, have proliferated as one more proposed panacea for solving complex behavioral problems despite only the most limited debate. In this essay, it is my intention to promote a more thoughtful and searching discussion of mental health courts and the important issues they raise that go to the very heart of the American justice system and its place in the larger political structure. Moreover, I suggest that the questions they present are largely applicable to other prob-lem-solving court initiatives, such as drug courts, that share a common conceptual framework and similar operational features.