'Justice's Beautiful Face': Bob Sadoff and the Redemptive Promise of Therapeutic Jurisprudence

M. Perlin
{"title":"'Justice's Beautiful Face': Bob Sadoff and the Redemptive Promise of Therapeutic Jurisprudence","authors":"M. Perlin","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2002815","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Dr. Robert Sadoff’s career is a reflection of his commitment - both as a scholar and as an expert witness - to the values of care, the avoidance of harm, and the well-being of those who come in contact with the forensic system. These are commitments that resonate in the therapeutic jurisprudence literature. One of the most important legal theoretical developments of the past two decades has been the creation and dynamic growth of therapeutic jurisprudence (TJ). Initially employed in cases involving individuals with mental disabilities, but subsequently expanded far beyond that narrow area, therapeutic jurisprudence presents a new model for assessing the impact of case law and legislation, recognizing that, as a therapeutic agent, the law that can have therapeutic or anti‐therapeutic consequences. The ultimate aim of therapeutic jurisprudence is to determine whether legal rules, procedures, and lawyer roles can or should be reshaped to enhance their therapeutic potential while not subordinating due process principles. There is an inherent tension in this inquiry, but Professor David Wexler - one of TJ’s “founding fathers” - clearly identifies how it must be resolved: “the law's use of “mental health information to improve therapeutic functioning [cannot] impinge upon justice concerns.” As I have written elsewhere, “An inquiry into therapeutic outcomes does not mean that therapeutic concerns `trump’ civil rights and civil liberties.” In this article, I first explain the fuller meaning of therapeutic jurisprudence. Next, I will look at Dr. Sadoff’s writing that has been explicitly about TJ, to be followed by (1) a consideration of his other writing that has clearly been inspired by his adherence to TJ principles (although those are not necessarily specified), and (2) a consideration of some of the reported litigated cases in which he has testified in which his testimony reflects TJ values. I conclude with some thoughts about his contributions in this area, coupled with some speculations as to why so few forensic psychiatrists ever write from this perspective.","PeriodicalId":83131,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of psychiatry & law","volume":"93 1","pages":"265-292"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of psychiatry & law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2002815","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

Dr. Robert Sadoff’s career is a reflection of his commitment - both as a scholar and as an expert witness - to the values of care, the avoidance of harm, and the well-being of those who come in contact with the forensic system. These are commitments that resonate in the therapeutic jurisprudence literature. One of the most important legal theoretical developments of the past two decades has been the creation and dynamic growth of therapeutic jurisprudence (TJ). Initially employed in cases involving individuals with mental disabilities, but subsequently expanded far beyond that narrow area, therapeutic jurisprudence presents a new model for assessing the impact of case law and legislation, recognizing that, as a therapeutic agent, the law that can have therapeutic or anti‐therapeutic consequences. The ultimate aim of therapeutic jurisprudence is to determine whether legal rules, procedures, and lawyer roles can or should be reshaped to enhance their therapeutic potential while not subordinating due process principles. There is an inherent tension in this inquiry, but Professor David Wexler - one of TJ’s “founding fathers” - clearly identifies how it must be resolved: “the law's use of “mental health information to improve therapeutic functioning [cannot] impinge upon justice concerns.” As I have written elsewhere, “An inquiry into therapeutic outcomes does not mean that therapeutic concerns `trump’ civil rights and civil liberties.” In this article, I first explain the fuller meaning of therapeutic jurisprudence. Next, I will look at Dr. Sadoff’s writing that has been explicitly about TJ, to be followed by (1) a consideration of his other writing that has clearly been inspired by his adherence to TJ principles (although those are not necessarily specified), and (2) a consideration of some of the reported litigated cases in which he has testified in which his testimony reflects TJ values. I conclude with some thoughts about his contributions in this area, coupled with some speculations as to why so few forensic psychiatrists ever write from this perspective.
“正义的美丽面孔”:鲍勃·萨多夫与治疗法学的救赎承诺
罗伯特·萨多夫博士的职业生涯反映了他作为学者和专家证人对与法医系统接触的人的关怀、避免伤害和福祉的价值观的承诺。这些承诺在治疗法学文献中引起了共鸣。过去二十年来最重要的法律理论发展之一是治疗法学(TJ)的创造和动态发展。治疗法学最初用于涉及精神残疾人士的案件,但随后扩展到这个狭窄的领域之外,它提出了一种评估判例法和立法影响的新模式,认识到作为一种治疗手段,法律可以产生治疗或反治疗的后果。治疗法学的最终目的是确定法律规则、程序和律师角色是否可以或应该被重塑,以增强其治疗潜力,同时不服从正当程序原则。在这项调查中存在着一种内在的紧张关系,但是David Wexler教授——TJ的“奠基者”之一——清楚地指出了必须如何解决这个问题:“法律使用‘心理健康信息来改善治疗功能,[不能]侵犯司法关切。”正如我在其他地方写的那样,“对治疗结果的调查并不意味着治疗问题‘胜过’公民权利和公民自由。”在本文中,我首先解释治疗法学的更全面的含义。接下来,我将看一下萨多夫博士关于TJ的明确写作,然后是(1)考虑他的其他写作,这些写作显然是受到他对TJ原则的坚持(尽管这些不一定是明确的)的启发,以及(2)考虑一些报道的诉讼案件,他在这些案件中作证,他的证词反映了TJ的价值观。最后,我对他在这一领域的贡献进行了一些思考,并提出了一些猜测,即为什么很少有法医精神病学家从这个角度写作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信