Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://anrows.intersearch.com.au/anrowsjspui/handle/1/12513 Record ID: d7707a89-fd9e-4b25-95f6-19b5fcadaa7a
Full metadata record
| DC Field | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.author | Phelan, Andrew | en |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2022-06-30T23:00:24Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2022-06-30T23:00:24Z | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2004 | en |
| dc.identifier.citation | 13 (3), February 2004 | en |
| dc.identifier.issn | 1036-7918 | en |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://anrows.intersearch.com.au/anrowsjspui/handle/1/12513 | - |
| dc.language | en | en |
| dc.publisher | Lawbook Co | en |
| dc.subject | Drug and alcohol misuse | en |
| dc.subject | Family law | en |
| dc.subject | Specialist courts | en |
| dc.subject | Advocacy | en |
| dc.subject | Perpetrators | en |
| dc.subject | Interagency work | en |
| dc.subject | Criminal justice responses | en |
| dc.subject | Policy | en |
| dc.title | Solving human problems or deciding cases? Judicial innovation in New York and its relevance to Australia: part II | en |
| dc.title.alternative | Journal of judicial administration | en |
| dc.type | Journal Article | en |
| dc.identifier.catalogid | 1183 | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | new_record | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | National | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | Journal article/research paper | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | International | en |
| dc.description.notes | "Published in association with the Australian Institute of Judicial Administration."<br/ >This article explores how the problem-solving approach has developed in family, domestic violence, youth and community courts in New York. It looks at the following specialised courts: Manhattan Family Treatment Court – the drug court model in a civil setting; the Brooklyn Domestic Violence Felony Court – the boundaries of therapeutic justice; Youth justice initiatives – whether they are bandaid, bandwagon or diversion – and lastly, the New York Community Courts. Elements, processes, resources and partners of the Brooklyn Domestic Violence Felony Court are outlined. Some of the challenges are discussed. A major issue for the Brooklyn Domestic Violence Felony Court model is the sustainability of resource usage; the proportion of guilty pleas has remained higher than in other courts, and times between arraignment and disposition have increased. However, there is no evidence to show that longer periods of treatment produce better outcomes. There has been no research to suggest that the model court reduces the incidence of domestic violence or that it is more cost effective. The other issue is the availability of batterer services. The range of services remains limited. The model of one family/one judge is argued as still not meeting the goal of an integrated court system since victims of domestic violence are still required to file petitions in multiple courts for child custody, support and divorce. It suggests that while it may be constitutionally possible for Australian states and territories to establish domestic violence courts based on the Brooklyn model, there is little evidence to show that the model would be effective in reducing the incidence of or recidivism in domestic violence. | en |
| dc.identifier.source | Journal of judicial administration | en |
| dc.date.entered | 2005-06-23 | en |
| Appears in Collections: | Journal Articles | |
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in ANROWS library are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.