Therapeutic jurisprudence in sentencing remarks: An exploratory study

Abstract

Previous research and commentary indicates that some judicial officers may be reluctant to apply therapeutic jurisprudence principles in court, perhaps because of a perception that therapeutic judging requires a significant departure from conventional practice. This Brief investigates in-court judicial practice through a selection of sentencing remarks for serious criminal offences. The analysis shows how everyday judicial practices can be consistent with the principles of therapeutic jurisprudence, and indicates that judicial officers are already adopting an approach to judging that can be regarded as therapeutic to some extent.