Jane Donoghue

Why is punishment not more effective? Why do we have such high re-offending rates? How can we address the problem of courts seeing the same offenders time and time again? How can we deal with crime and criminals more cost effectively? These are some of the questions that are commonly asked about the day to day workings and outcomes of the criminal justice system. In recent years, the notion of problem-solving justice has emerged as a response to these concerns.

Over the last decade in particular, the United Kingdom, in common with other jurisdictions such as Canada, the United States (US) and Australia, has sought to develop more effective ways of responding to criminal behaviour and social disorder through court reforms designed to address specific manifestations of crime. Strongly influenced by developments in US court specialization, problem-solving and specialist courts including domestic violence courts, drugs courts, community courts, and mental health courts have proliferated in Britain over the last few years. These courts operate at the intersection of criminal law and social policy and appear to challenge much of the traditional model of court practice. In addition, policy makers and practitioners have made significant attempts to try to embed problem-solving approaches into the criminal justice system more widely.

These developments raise fundamental and deeply contentious questions about the conceptualization and delivery of ‘justice’. Through examination of original data gathered from detailed interviews with judges, magistrates and other key criminal justice professionals in England and Wales, as well as analysis of legislative and policy interventions, this book discusses the impact of the creation and development of court specialization and problem-solving justice and considers how we theorize problem-solving alongside notions of community justice, sentencing and punishment. It identifies the political dimensions and recurrent inadequacies in law and public policy in this area and examines the prospects for problem-solving justice and court specialization in an age of austerity. Can a problem-solving approach transform the way we think about punishment, the role of the courts and criminal justice itself?

Although anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) are a relatively recent development in criminal justice policy in Britain, they have nonetheless been an extremely topical area of law and policy for some years. Despite considerable public support for the creation and use of ASBOs, much of the academic literature characterises the use of ASBOs as indicative of an increasingly authoritarian political and social agenda embodying marginalisation and social control.

Rather than presenting a wholly critical perspective on anti-social behaviour policy as borne out of politically opportunistic and reactionary motivations, this book argues that the creation of the ASBO, and latterly the introduction of the New Labour administration's 'Respect Agenda', in fact represent a socially progressive attempt to address the pernicious and debilitating effects of anti-social behaviour which are most often felt by those with the least opportunity to escape it. The introduction of ASBOs can be characterised not necessarily as part of a 'culture of control' but as part of a shift towards a culture petitioning civic reciprocity.

The role of lay magistrates in England and Wales has been progressively undermined by protracted processes of reform over the last two decades. Current government proposals aim to reorient and ‘strengthen’ their function through the creation of new magisterial responsibilities such as oversight of out of court disposals and greater involvement with local justice initiatives. This article argues that while these proposals embody necessary and important areas for reform,
taken in isolation they will fail to consolidate the role of magistrates in summary justice unless they
are enacted alongside other measures which aim to reaffirm the status of lay justices, and which seek to reverse the trend which has prioritised administrative efficiency at the expense of lay justice. Rapidly declining magistrate numbers together with continuous (and continuing) programs
of court closures are irreconcilable with the future viability of a lay magistracy.

This article theorizes the adoption of risk assessment practices to inform criminal justice responses to ‘vulnerable’ and repeat victims of anti-social behaviour. Evidence suggests that some police forces have become highly risk-averse which has had consequences for the way in which minor incivilities have come to be viewed as perpetually requiring a formal police response. However, the development of victim risk assessment has also been very effective in enabling agencies to determine ‘high-risk’ victims with clarity and speed. It is argued that, rather than viewing risk in hegemonic terms, more attention ought to be given to conceptualizing risk in terms of the new opportunities it presents not simply for refining and improving the delivery of services, but also for the ways in which risk enables victims to develop new parameters of victimhood, and to subvert the traditional dominance of politics/policy in acting as primary definers on understanding(s) and accepted knowledge(s) of victimization and vulnerability.

A problem-solving approach to anti-social behaviour (ASB) cases has recently been embedded into magistrates’ courts in England and Wales. This approach incorporates core components of the Anti-Social Behaviour Response Court (ASBRC) model and is underpinned by principles of community justice. This article summarizes some of the main findings of an 18-month ESRC-funded study that investigated how far the ASBRC model has been absorbed into mainstream courts in England and Wales. This research suggests that courts have not embedded community justice principles, nor have they altered their focus to incorporate a significant degree of liaison with the community. The article concludes with some observations on the implications of the findings for the development and enhancement of community engagement and community justice principles.

This article considers the development and use of the law regulating the prosecution of parents under section 444 of the Education Act1996, in the broader context of legislation and policy initiatives concerned with the governance of parental responsibility. It explores the ways in which the power to prosecute parents has been used by local educational authorities (LEAs) and interpreted by the courts. The article critically analyses the manner in which the powers emphasise punishment and retribution in the context of the social moralisation of ‘flawed’ parents; pay insuffcient regard to the effects of parental responsibility laws on low-income, single parent families; represent an attempt to impose a simple solution on to a complex socio-economic problem; and amplify the scope for mothers to be made the subject of criminal justice interventions. It is argued that the prosecution of parents imposes an unfair burden on mothers and, in particular, single parent mothers.