To gain insight into questions about problem-solving courts and their expansion, in 2003 a Center for Court Innovation research team conducted four focus group sessions (in Burbank and San Francisco, California, and in New York City and Rochester, New York) and several individual interviews among a diverse group of judges with experience in drug courts, domestic violence courts, mental health courts, and other collaborative justice courts in those two states. In total, 35 judges participated in this exploratory research. The findings, although not necessarily representative of the general population of problem-solving court judges, provide important insights into the potential transferability of new practices to general court calendars. In the following excerpt, the question of how domestic violence courts compare to other problem-solving courts is addressed.
Focus group participants noted that there is a divide between domestic violence courts and other problem-solving court models, a divide marked by significant differences in philosophy and practice. This suggests that there may be no single, universal body of problem-solving principles and practices. It also suggests that the type of problem-solving court experience judges have had may influence how they view problem solving and what they consider to be transferable components. This fact was frequently acknowledged, both explicitly and implicitly, in exchanges among focus group participants.
Perhaps most significant for this discussion, domestic violence courts do not view defendant rehabilitation as a high-priority part of the problem-solving process. This differs sharply from most problem-solving courts (with the possible exception of community courts). Rather, the mission of domestic violence courts concentrates more on the promotion of victim safety and offender accountability. In focus groups, judges further discussed the differences between domestic violence and other problem-solving courts.
Domestic Violence Court Operations
Based on experience, one judge believed you could effectively apply all the core problem-solving court practices in a domestic violence court, except that it would be inappropriate for the courtroom to applaud defendant compliance, and you would need to tone down the use of incentives and sanctions. However, most judges articulated major differences between domestic violence court operations and those of other problem-solving courts. The primary difference concerned the basic dispositional processes in the court. In domestic violence court, unlike in most other problem-solving courts, the determination of guilt is an integral component, which often leads to an adversarial atmosphere in which defendants deny culpability and resist participation in community-based sanctions and services.
This tension persists even in post-disposition monitoring, one judge in the Rochester group noted, because domestic violence courts will not tolerate violent recidivism the way a drug court might tolerate relapse: “There is an immediate punishment for any kind of behavior like that.” As another judge in that group pointed out, domestic violence courts have really adopted only the punitive tools of behavioral modification; there are sanctions but no rewards. Explained a New York City judge, “We don’t clap when you complete a domestic violence accountability program.” Again, this view of the adversarial nature of domestic violence court operations was not universal. One judge believed a truly collaborative approach could emerge by building trust over time among the judge, district attorney, and public defender.
Another key difference is court volume. domestic violence court judges reported that they had staggering caseloads, far more than in other problem-solving courts. This left them with little time to spend either on individual interactions or on return court monitoring appearances; as a result, some judges were forced to rely on probation for monitoring.
Finally, a few judges remarked on the procedural challenges posed in domestic violence courts by evidence-based prosecution and victim recantation, both issues that rarely arise in other courts. These two issues, which can take up substantial amounts of court time, require both the judge and attorneys to have technical expertise. Indeed, one of the areas in which domestic violence courts were seen as very similar to other problem-solving courts was in the need for specialized knowledge.
Program Mandates
While drug court judges frequently stressed the need to understand the psychopharmacology of addiction, there is no equivalent concept in domestic violence. One cannot describe domestic violence in terms of a disease model, and there is no known “cure.” So while the process of placing and monitoring defendants in batterer intervention programs may seem similar to that of placing and monitoring defendants in substance abuse or mental health treatment, some judges observed that it is done with a different intention. Batterer intervention programs may be mandated as much for purposes of supervision and punishment as for rehabilitation.
Overall, domestic violence courts do share several common features with other problem-solving courts: a larger team composed of judge, attorneys, resource coordination staff, and treatment representatives; community outreach; monitoring and accountability; and extra information about defendants and their compliance. But most judges cited other features as noticeably absent: substantial time for each case; non-adversarial deliberations; and interactive, theatrical dimensions with respect to the judge-defendant-audience relationship.