A neo-retributionist concurs with Professor Nolan

American Criminal Law Review

Volumn 40, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 1567-1571

  Hoffman, Morris B ^a  

^a Second Judicial District   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 2442555249     PISSN: 01640364     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Note

References (18)

1. See generally JAMES L. NOLAN, JR., REINVENTING JUSTICE: THE AMERICAN DRUG COURT MOVEMENT (Paul J. DiMaggio et al. eds., 2001); Morris B. Hoffman, Therapeutic Jurisprudence, Neo-Rehabilitationism and Judicial Collectivism: The Least Dangerous Branch Becomes Most Dangerous, 29 FORDHAM URB. L.J. 2063 (2002).
2. See generally JAMES L. NOLAN, JR., REINVENTING JUSTICE: THE AMERICAN DRUG COURT MOVEMENT (Paul J. DiMaggio et al. eds., 2001); Morris B. Hoffman, Therapeutic Jurisprudence, Neo-Rehabilitationism and Judicial Collectivism: The Least Dangerous Branch Becomes Most Dangerous, 29 FORDHAM URB. L.J. 2063 (2002).
3. James L. Nolan Jr., Redefining Criminal Courts: Problem-Solving and the Meaning of Justice, 41 AM. CRIM. L. REV. 1541, 1551 (2003).
4. Professor Nolan makes this broader point in his wonderful book, THE THERAPEUTIC STATE: JUSTIFYING GOVERNMENT AT CENTURY'S END (1998). It is a must read for anyone interested in these issues.
5. Morris B. Hoffman, The Drug Court Scandal, 78 N.C. L. REV. 1438, 1510-12 (2000).
6. See, e.g., ROBERT NOZICK, ANARCHY, STATE AND UTOPIA (1974); JOHN RAWLS, A THEORY OF JUSTICE (1971).
7. See, e.g., ROBERT NOZICK, ANARCHY, STATE AND UTOPIA (1974); JOHN RAWLS, A THEORY OF JUSTICE (1971).
8. See Morris B. Hoffman & Timothy H. Goldsmith, The Biological Roots of Punishment, 1 OHIO ST. J. CRIM. L. (forthcoming March 2004).
9. For a detailed discussion of the methodological issues involved in studying drug court effectiveness, see Hoffman, supra note 5, at 1481-89.
10. See NOLAN, supra note 1, at 127-132 (noting the tendency of many drug court evaluators to include narrative-based criteria); Hoffman, supra note 5, at 1491-98 (reviewing recidivism results for the few formal studies that compared the relevant populations, and noting them to be significantly less promising than informal studies would suggest); see also U.S. GEN. ACCOUNTING OFFICE, DRUG COURTS: BETTER DOJ DATA COLLECTION AND EVALUATION EFFORTS NEEDED TO MEASURE IMPACT OF DRUG COURT PROGRAMS Rep. 434 (2002), available at www.gao.gov/new.items/d02434.pdf (last visited Nov. 19, 2003) (concluding that, despite two decades of drug court data, and despite the GAO's directive in 1997 that federal evaluators do a better job of analyzing that data, the evidence of the effectiveness of drug courts remains inconclusive).
11. See NOLAN, supra note 1, at 127-132 (noting the tendency of many drug court evaluators to include narrative-based criteria); Hoffman, supra note 5, at 1491-98 (reviewing recidivism results for the few formal studies that compared the relevant populations, and noting them to be significantly less promising than informal studies would suggest); see also U.S. GEN. ACCOUNTING OFFICE, DRUG COURTS: BETTER DOJ DATA COLLECTION AND EVALUATION EFFORTS NEEDED TO MEASURE IMPACT OF DRUG COURT PROGRAMS Rep. 434 (2002), available at www.gao.gov/new.items/d02434.pdf (last visited Nov. 19, 2003) (concluding that, despite two decades of drug court data, and despite the GAO's directive in 1997 that federal evaluators do a better job of analyzing that data, the evidence of the effectiveness of drug courts remains inconclusive).
12. See NOLAN, supra note 1, at 127-132 (noting the tendency of many drug court evaluators to include narrative-based criteria); Hoffman, supra note 5, at 1491-98 (reviewing recidivism results for the few formal studies that compared the relevant populations, and noting them to be significantly less promising than informal studies would suggest); see also U.S. GEN. ACCOUNTING OFFICE, DRUG COURTS: BETTER DOJ DATA COLLECTION AND EVALUATION EFFORTS NEEDED TO MEASURE IMPACT OF DRUG COURT PROGRAMS Rep. 434 (2002), available at www.gao.gov/new.items/d02434.pdf (last visited Nov. 19, 2003) (concluding that, despite two decades of drug court data, and despite the GAO's directive in 1997 that federal evaluators do a better job of analyzing that data, the evidence of the effectiveness of drug courts remains inconclusive).
13. The judicial hug is a commonly accepted tool in the toolbox of therapeutic jurisprudence. See, e.g., NOLAN, supra note 1, at 102.
14. Indeed, therapeutic jurisprudence suffers from precisely the same empirical and philosophical maladies that killed its ancestor-the rehabilitation movement that took America by storm in the early 1930s and was dead by 1980.
15. To qualify for federal seed money, drug courts have to meet quite specific "design criteria," ensuring the spread of federally approved cookie cutter drug courts. See Hoffman, supra note 5, at 1529 & n. 343.
16. Professor Nolan catalogues this remarkably inflexible orthodoxy in a chapter of his book called "Therapeutic Theater." NOLAN, supra note 1, at 60-70.
17. This is what Professor Nolan pithily calls "guiltless justice. " NOLAN, supra note 1, at 140-43 (contending that, in the therapeutic movement, self-esteem replaces the determination of guilt as the central essence of the adjudicative system).
18. MARK A.R. KLEIMAN, AGAINST EXCESS: DRUG POLICY FOR RESULTS 14 (1992).