Society, Science, and Problem-Solving Courts provides a comprehensive overview of problem-solving courts (PSC), including drug courts, mental health courts, veterans courts, and others, defined by the authors as “a type of specialty court that handles cases involving certain subsets of a population (e.g., veterans) or types of crimes (e.g., prostitution) or social issues (e.g., drug addiction)” (p 6). Problem-solving courts typically engage with the social roots of crime and involve various social services in addition to, or instead of, retributive punishment. The authors of this volume examine how societal forces (norms, political culture, economic conditions) and scientific tools (psychology, evaluation methods, monitoring technologies) have affected the development, structure, and success of these courts.
The book comprises five major sections. The first section is an introduction to problem-solving courts, including definitional and historical aspects and an overview of the different types of courts that have been established. This is followed by an overview of the scientific basis of PSC, including justice principles, psychology, medical treatment and diagnosis, and outcome evaluations. The third section examines the impact of society and law by introducing social science theories, such as the “Social Mind-Set Model,” and offering examples of clashes between different cultures and the legal system. Next, the authors address the cultural differences in PSC and analyze the reasons why some countries adopt them whereas others have not and the ways in which other countries have adapted the U.S. model of PSC to fit their own legal systems. The last section examines what the future holds for these courts by reflecting on their past and highlighting areas for improvement.
The authors analyze 18 different types of PSC, some of which have limited data. The sparse availability of information on the scientific methods used to develop some of these courts and data assessing their effectiveness is one limitation of both the volume and the literature it surveys. The authors note that, even among relatively well studied PSC, evaluations of their effectiveness have only addressed select and short-term outcomes, such as recidivism rates. Based on the available data, the authors conclude that apparent advantages of PSC include increasing the consistency of rulings, decompressing large case dockets, increasing judge satisfaction, potentially increasing cost-effectiveness of the courts, and providing social benefits for defendants (participants) and their family members. Disadvantages apparent from the current literature include potential coerciveness, burnout or vicarious trauma among judges, and higher initial costs.
Author Monica K. Miller, JD, PhD is a Foundation Professor in the Department of Criminal Justice and the Interdisciplinary Social Psychology PhD Program at the University of Nevada, Reno, and her research investigates the interplay between psychological theory and legal institutions. Mia A. Holbrook, PhD is an assistant professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Nevada, who focuses on assessing implementation challenges in the use of evidence-based practices, treatment courts, and criminal justice reform. Logan A. Yelderman, PhD is a social psychologist whose work centers on the intersection of social psychology, religion, and law. Kylie Kulak, currently pursuing a doctoral degree, conducts research that focuses on emotional and extralegal influences in legal contexts.
The book appeals to a broad audience, addressing both the fundamentals of these courts and more advanced topics. Newer trainees hoping to learn more about the foundation, structure, and evidence backing PSC will find this to be a thorough introduction to the topic, whereas policy leaders, jurists, lawmakers, and court professionals will appreciate its review of program evaluation and policy development.
From a forensic psychiatry perspective, one of the book’s strengths is its international perspective on the interface between science and policy. The authors survey the presence or absence of PSC in countries across the globe. They provide examples of differences in societal structure, public attitudes toward rehabilitation, and available resources to explain how variations in these elements can shape a country’s decision to adopt PSC. This perspective is valuable for forensic psychiatrists involved in public sector administration, as the authors’ approach serves as a reminder that different frameworks for problem-solving courts may be effective in one jurisdiction, but not readily translate to another.
The authors also address potential ethics and practical concerns regarding the future of problem-solving courts, including decisions regarding the expansion or contraction of available specialized courts, the need for a more diverse approach within these courts, and the potential for coercion or a violation of a participant’s due process rights when courts prioritize therapeutic goals. The authors note that expansions in court types may outpace the effort to create standards for the delivery of services in the courts and the scientific evidence supporting them. They also highlight the importance of ensuring that court operations are not a “one size fits all” model and that they must meet the needs of all the communities they serve. The authors emphasize that, as PSC continue to evolve, careful attention must be paid to the voluntariness of the process and whether their structure inadvertently coerces individuals into undesired treatment. Although the book highlights the potential benefits of these courts, it also encourages the audience to consider the ethics complexities that arise when integrating treatment-oriented approaches into the judicial process.
In conclusion, Society, Science, and Problem-Solving Courts offers an in-depth review of a significant movement within the justice system. The book highlights the role of science and society in shaping the courts’ past and future, and it offers a balanced appraisal of the positives and negatives of the PSC model in the legal system. It is a worthy addition to the literature on therapeutic jurisprudence.
Footnotes
Disclosures of financial or other potential conflicts of interest: None.
- © 2026 American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
