◄Previous: 4.1 The benefits and limitations of problem-solving and adversarial courts

# 5 Re-imagining social rupture and repair

There are various types of problem-solving courts in existence around the world. Whilst FDAC is one example, it is possible to apply the key principles of problem-solving courts to different court settings.

## Activity 2 Reconsidering the case of Bob and John

You will now return to the example of Bob and John, set out in Section 1 of this course. For a moment, imagine that Bob is now in court facing a charge of assault. Based on what you have learnt in this course, how do you think an adversarial court might deal with this case, and how might a problem-solving court deal with it?

(A text entry box would appear here, but your browser does not support it.)

### Discussion

Within an adversarial court, it is likely that a case for prosecuting Bob would be put forward, and a counter-case in Bob’s defence would be made. These two sides would be aiming to make the most convincing argument to the court, in an attempt to ‘win’ the case. The case would likely centre around the incident in which Bob punched John, with all other claims made in relevance to that moment.

By contrast, within a problem-solving court, even though the incident would play an important role, it is likely that the focus would be more widely about the factors that led to that incident, aiming to develop a wider understanding of Bob’s strengths and needs, and the ways in which he might be supported to act differently in similar situations in the future.

Exploring the differences between adversarial and problem-solving courts highlights a vital, but often overlooked, issue in relation to repairing social ruptures: the need for people to be seen and understood as unique individuals, each with their own strengths, requirements and limitations. Approaches for overcoming social conflict should, ideally, respect a person’s individuality. However, taking a new perspective can show that sometimes it is society itself that is failing someone and, as a result, extra support for that person is sometimes required.

Problem-solving courts are not always a perfect answer to the problem of social ruptures and their repair, nor are they always available as an option through the court system. But these courts might have better outcomes than more adversarial approaches. Developing alternative solutions to the continual failings of legal and court systems is likely to be a long and iterative process. Many alternative solutions or new approaches will be a step along the way to developing criminal justice solutions which aim to be more adequate at repairing or preventing the impact of various kinds of social rupture.

Criminology can play an important role in contributing to this forward momentum. Criminologists and students of criminology can use their critical thinking skills to highlight and challenge common-sense assumptions; identify the implicit contradictions; and devise new solutions.

◄Contents►Next: Conclusion

OpenLearn - Exploring criminology: problem-solving courts
Except for third party materials and otherwise, this content is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 Licence, full copyright detail can be found in the acknowledgements section. Please see full copyright statement for details.