Doctoral Dissertation Research: Therapeutic Alternatives in the Criminal Courts

University Of Texas At Austin, Austin TX

Investigators

Abstract

This study examines the growing use of therapy as an alternative to criminal prosecution in the United States. Tens of thousands of defendants each year are now offered a pathway to avoid felony convictions by completing therapeutic activities and passing drug tests for designated periods of time. By analyzing the role and consequences of these pretrial diversion programs, this project will contribute to knowledge about the impacts of the contemporary criminal justice system. It also will provide information to policymakers, legal practitioners, and the public as they determine the role that pretrial diversion should play in criminal justice reform efforts and in the provision of mental healthcare. Despite the growing popularity of pretrial diversion programs across the U.S., little sociological research has yet examined their impacts. This research draws on national and local datasets, document analysis, an original survey experiment, participant observation, and interviews with attorneys, defendants, and therapists to illuminate the consequences of diversion nationally and to explore variation between programs. Three questions are addressed: 1) how effective diversion is as a tool to promote decarceration; 2) what the implications of diversion are for social inequality; and 3) what effects diversion has on the lives of defendants. Findings will contribute to scholarship on contemporary U.S. criminal justice system reform and on the consequences of using the court system to provide mental health treatment. In addition, this research will provide empirical information to jurisdictions seeking to expand diversionary options or to design new programs, to policymakers in search of effective criminal justice alternatives, and to groups involved in advocating for penal reform. This award reflects NSF's statutory mission and has been deemed worthy of support through evaluation using the Foundation's intellectual merit and broader impacts review criteria.