The law can be a systemically induced decision point for offenders and can act to help or hinder desistance. Desistance can be described as a change process that may be initiated by decisive momentum, supported by intervention, and maintained through re-entry, culminating in a citizen with full rights and responsibilities. Desistance within courts, corrections, and beyond is maximized by applying the law in a therapeutic manner. In common, desistance, therapeutic jurisprudence, and human rights support offender autonomy and well-being. The intersections between the three models have been explored to propose a normative framework that provides principles and offers strategies to address therapeutic legal rules, legal procedures, and the role of psycholegal actors and offenders in initiating, supporting, and maintaining desistance.
BermanG.FeinblattJ. (2001). Problem-solving courts: A brief primer. Law & Policy, 23, 125-140. doi:10.1111/1467-9930.00107
2.
BirgdenA. (2002). Dealing with the resistant criminal client: A psychologically minded strategy for more effective legal counselling. Criminal Law Bulletin, 38, 225-243.
3.
BirgdenA. (2004). Therapeutic jurisprudence and responsivity: Finding the will and the way in offender rehabilitation. Psychology, Crime & Law, 10, 283-295. doi:10.1080/0683160410001662771
4.
BirgdenA. (2008). Offender rehabilitation: A normative framework for forensic psychologists. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 15, 450-468. doi:10.1080/13218710802101597
5.
BirgdenA. (2009). Therapeutic jurisprudence and offender rights: A normative stance is required. Law Review of the University of Puerto Rico, 78(1), 43-60.
6.
BirgdenA.CucoloH. (2010). The treatment of sex offenders: Evidence, ethics, and human rights. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 23, 295-313. doi:10.1177/1079063210381412
7.
BirgdenA.PerlinM. L. (2008). “Tolling for the luckless, the abandoned and forsaked”: Therapeutic jurisprudence and international human rights law as applied to prisoners and detainees by forensic psychologists. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 13, 231-243. doi:10.1348/135532508X281511
8.
CaseyP.RottmanD. B. (2000). Therapeutic jurisprudence in the courts. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 18, 445-457.
9.
ClarkM. (2005). Motivational interviewing for probation staff: Increasing the readiness for change. Federal Probation, 69(2), 22-28.
10.
DurnescuI. (2011). Pains of probation: Effective practice and human rights. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55, 530-545. doi:10.1177/0306624X10369489
11.
FentonJ. (2013). Risk aversion and anxiety in Scottish criminal justice system social work: Can desistance and human rights agenda have an impact?The Howard Journal, 52(1), 77-90. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2311.2012.00716.x
12.
GarlandS. (2001). The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1525/pol.2002.25.2.109
13.
GöbbelsS.WardT.WillisG. M. (2012). An integrative theory of desistance from sex offending. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 453-462. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2012.06.003
14.
Herzog-EvansM. (2011a). Desisting in France: What probation officers know and do. A first approach. European Journal of Probation, 3(2), 29-46.
15.
Herzog-EvansM. (2011b). Judicial rehabilitation in France: Helping with the desisting process and acknowledging achieved desistance. European Journal of Probation, 3(1), 4-19.
16.
KingM. S. (2009). Solution-focused judging bench book. Melbourne: Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration and the Legal Services Board of Victoria.
17.
KirkD. (2012). Residential change as a turning point in the life course of crime: Desistance or temporary cessation?Criminology, 50, 329-358. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2011.00262.x
18.
KressK. (1999). Therapeutic jurisprudence and the resolution of value conflicts: What we can realistically expect, in practice, from theory. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 17, 555-588.
19.
La FondJ. Q. (1999). Can therapeutic jurisprudence be normatively neutral? Sexual predator laws: Their impact on participants and policy. Arizona Law Review, 41, 375-415.
20.
LawsD. R.WardT. (2011). Desistance from sex offending: Alternatives to throwing away the keys. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
21.
LeBelT. P.BurnettR.MarunaS.BushwayS. (2008). The “chicken and egg” of subjective and social factors in desistance from crime. European Journal of Criminology, 5, 131-159. doi:10.1177/1477370807087640
22.
Madrid v. Gomez, 889 F. Supp. 1146 (N.D. Cal. 1995).
23.
MarunaS. (2001). Making good: How ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10430-000
MarunaS. (2011a). Judicial rehabilitation and the “clean bill of health” in criminal justice. European Journal of Probation, 3, 97-117.
26.
MarunaS. (2011b). Re-entry as a rite of passage. Punishment & Society, 13, 3-28. doi:10.1177/1462474510385641
27.
MarunaS.LeBelT. P. (2003). Welcome home: Examining the “re-entry court” concept from a strengths-based perspective. Western Criminology Review, 4, 91-107.
28.
McNeillF. (2009). Toward effective practice in offender supervision. Glasgow: Scottish Centre for Crime & Research Justice.
29.
McNeillF. (2011). Supporting desistance from crime: Reconfiguring penal practice. Retrieved from http://vimeo.com/29040198
30.
McNeillF.BatchelorS.BurnettR.KnoxJ. (2005). 21st century social work: Reducing re-offending: Key practice principles. Edinburgh, UK: Social Work Inspection Agency.
31.
PerlinM. L. (in press). “The ladder of the law has no top and no bottom”: How therapeutic jurisprudence can give life to international human rights. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry. doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2014.02.026. available online 26April2014
32.
RobinsonP. H.DarleyJ. M. (2004). Does criminal law deter? A behavioral science investigation. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 24, 173-205. doi:10.1093/ojls/24.2.173
33.
RonnerA. D. (2008). The learned-helpless lawyer: Clinical legal education and therapeutic jurisprudence as antidotes to Bartleby Syndrome. Touro Law Review, 24, 601-696.
34.
SaksE. R. (2000). Mental health law: Three scholarly traditions. Southern California Law Review, 74, 295-310.
35.
SampsonR. J.LaubJ. H. (2005). A life-course view of the development of crime. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 602, 12-45. doi:10.1177/0002716205280075
36.
SchoppR. F. (1999). Therapeutic jurisprudence: Integrated enquiry and instrumental prescriptions. Behavioural Sciences and the Law, 17(5), 589-605.
37.
SloboginC. (1995). Therapeutic jurisprudence: Five dilemmas to ponder. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 1, 193-219.
38.
TylerT. R. (2006). Why people obey the law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
39.
TylerT. R. (2010). “Legitimacy in corrections”: Policy implications. Criminology & Public Policy, 9, 127-134. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9133.2010.00615.x
40.
WardT.BirgdenA. (2007). Human rights and clinical correctional practice. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 628-643. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2007.05.001
41.
WexlerD. B. (1990). An introduction to therapeutic jurisprudence. In WexlerD. B. (Ed.), Therapeutic jurisprudence: The law as a therapeutic agent (pp. 3-20). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
42.
WexlerD. B. (2001). Robes and rehabilitation: How judges can help offenders “make good.”Court Review, 38, 17-23.
43.
WexlerD. B.WinickB. J. (1996). Introduction. In WexlerD. B.WinickB. J. (Eds.), The law in a therapeutic key: Developments in therapeutic jurisprudence (pp. xvii-xx). Durham, NC: Carolina University Press.
44.
WinickB. J. (1992). On autonomy: Legal and psychological perspectives. Villanova Law Review, 37, 1705-1777.
45.
WinickB. J. (1997). The jurisprudence of therapeutic jurisprudence. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3, 184-206.
46.
WinickB. J. (2002). Therapeutic jurisprudence and the treatment of people with mental illness in Eastern Europe: Construing international human rights law. New York Law School Journal of International and Comparative Law, 21, 537-572.
47.
WinickB. J. (2003). Therapeutic jurisprudence and problem solving courts. Fordham Urban Law Review, 30, 1055-1090.
