Addressing the Solution-Focused Sceptics: Moving Beyond Punitivity in the Sentencing of Drug-Addicted and Mentally Impaired Offenders

In 2012, the Queensland Government closed Queensland's solution-focused courts, ie, the Drug Courts, the Special Circumstances Court list (for homeless and mentally impaired offenders) and the Murri Courts. There was no public consultation process. A ministerial press release explained that the courts were 'costly', 'inefficient' and offered a 'comparatively low return on investment'. In the same year, the New South Wales Government closed its Youth Drug Court, also citing the Court's price tag. This article uses solution-focused courts as a case study to highlight a problem in criminal justice across many Australian jurisdictions: that is, the willingness of governments of all political persuasions to ignore research-based evidence for short-term political expediency. Freiberg describes this as 'affective' versus 'effective' justice. This problem has two facets: first, the willingness of governments to implement policies that poll well - often as a knee-jerk response to extraordinary incidents - despite the complete absence of any evidence of efficacy. Arguably, many of these policies are simply fatuous but, perhaps, relatively benign. Second, and more problematic, is the willingness of governments to implement policies that are, according to research-based evidence, counterproductive to crime prevention goals. This phenomenon might be defensible if these policies reflected the democratic will. However, as this article will argue, empirical evidence demonstrates that assumptions about popular punitivity have exaggerated its force and given insufficient credit to the public's capacity for nuanced differentiation between the circumstances that demand a punitive versus a rehabilitative response.