|
Therapeutic jurisprudence ("TJ") is the study of how legal systems affect the emotions, behaviors and mental health of people.〔Black's Law Dictionary 9th ed. (West Group, 2009)〕 It is a relatively new multidisciplinary field taking its name from jurisprudence, the study of the law, and therapeutic, the power to cure or heal. It examines how the law and those who enact it may be helpful or harmful to people's wellbeing and mental health, and what alternatives there might be, including in specialist courts for particular problems. ==Early development== The term was first used by Professor David Wexler, of the University of Arizona Rogers College of Law and University of Puerto Rico School of Law, in a paper delivered to the National Institute of Mental Health in 1987. Along with Professor Bruce Winick of the University of Miami School of Law, who originated the concept with Wexler, the professors suggested the need for a new perspective, TJ, to study the extent to which substantive rules, legal procedures, and the role of legal actors (lawyers and judges primarily) produce therapeutic or antitherapeutic consequences for individuals involved in the legal process. In the early 90’s, legal scholars began to use the term when discussing mental health law, including Wexler and Winick in their 1991 book, ''Essays in Therapeutic Jurisprudence''. The TJ Approach soon spread beyond mental health law to include TJ work in criminal law, family and juvenile law, health law, tort law, contracts and commercial law, trusts and estates law, disability law, constitutional law, evidence law, and legal profession. In short, TJ became a mental health approach to law generally.〔Wexler and Winick, 1996, Law in a Therapeutic Key: Developments in Therapeutic Jurisprudence.〕〔David B. Wexler, The Development of Therapeutic Jurisprudence: From Theory to Practice, 68 Revista Juridica Universidad de Puerto Rico 691-705 (1999).〕 The approach was soon applied to the way various legal actors--judges, lawyers, police officers, and expert witnesses—play their roles, suggesting ways of doing so that would diminish unintended antitherapeutic consequences and increase the psychological well-being of those who come into contact with these legal figures. In 1999 in a Notre Dame Law Review article〔Hora, Schma and Rosenthal, “Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Drug Treatment Court Movement: Revolutionizing the Criminal Justice System’s Response to Drug Abuse and Crime in America,” 74 NDLR 439 (1999)〕 TJ was applied to drug treatment courts (DTC) for the first time and the authors asserted that DTCs were TJ in action and that TJ provided the jurisprudential underpinnings of DTCs. TJ has emerged as the theoretical foundation for the increasing number of "problem-solving courts" that have transformed the role of the judiciary. These include, in addition to DTCs, domestic violence courts, mental health courts, re-entry courts, teen courts, and community courts.〔Winick and Wexler, 2003, Judging in a Therapeutic Key: Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Courts.〕 Some countries embraced the TJ movement more than others: particularly America where it originated, as well as Canada and Australia albeit with reservations, with England mainly resisting while nevertheless developing some problem-solving courts.〔(The International Problem-Solving Court Movement ) James L. Nolan, Princeton University Press, 31 Mar 2009, pg 77〕 Attempts are made to introduce TJ concepts into the systems of various other countries, such as Pakistan.〔(Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Legal Education in Pakistan: A Quest for Innovation in Study of Law to Mend Attitudes of Law Professionals Towards Litigants ) Muhammad Amir Munir, Pakistan Law Journal, 2008〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「therapeutic jurisprudence」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|