Does Not Reflect the MHC Model

The first principle of the MHC Model is that therapeutic jurisprudence promotes supports and services that are aligned with rehabilitation and reintegration. In line with categorization system explained in the above section, the data suggest that the court under study does not reflect the MHC Model. Specifically, as presented in Table 4, the data were either weakly or not consistent with the associated indicators (where the data obtained from interviews and observations conflicted with the indicator to some extent), or its status was indistinguishable (where a lack of concurrence in the data prevented a designation of either highly or weakly consistent).

There are a number of factors that can assist in explaining the weakly consistent indicators. Specifically, respondents emphasized that the MHC under study is

substantially impeded by a lack of funding and resources. This structural and externally imposed reality has a cascading effect on the coupling of the remaining indicators, all of which require and flow from the availability of community resources. For example, a rich array of community supports and resources is a necessary condition for the court to utilize diversion in place of traditional sentencing. In the former, participants do not enter a plea, whereas in the latter, they must enter a guilty plea, resulting in a qualitatively different experience at the very beginning. Without adequate community resources, the court under study was impeded in its ability to use diversion, and had little choice but to                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

& Rowan, 1977, p. 342). As institutions evolve, expansion often occurs in the form of lower levels or sub-units, referred to as organizations (Meyer & Rowan, 1977).NIT inquires as to whether formal structures accurately reflect the day-to-day activities of contemporary organizations. Specifically, organizations can “tightly  coupled”  (reflect),  or  “loosely  coupled”  (not  reflect)  institutions.  

fall back on traditional responses to crime (such as probation). This, in turn, directly affected the indicator “balanced responses to crime”, where the majority of respondents characterized the court as punitive, suggesting that it does not place priority on

addressing individuals’ disorders and associated needs to the extent needed.

However, this characterization is best interpreted as one of degree rather than kind, and does not imply that the court fails completely to balance its responses to crime.

In this regard, several respondents outlined alternative to diversion that the court adopts to balance dispositions. For example, the court would routinely adjourn proceedings to grant participants the opportunity to become engaged in treatment programs and support services. To some extent, this alterative mirrors the diversion option by granting

participants opportunities to address their underlying disorders and circumstances.

Although they are not diverted from the need to enter a plea, participants are afforded the time to better situate themselves for sentencing. Thus, despite being impeded from applying the indicator as described in the MHC Model, the court nonetheless achieves a reasonable work-around within the constraints it faces.

This shortcoming further affected the degree to which the remaining indicators were consistent with the literature. For example, the literature described “monitored compliance” strictly in the context of presumed diversion, and did not contemplate circumstances where diversion was not possible. Accordingly, the court under study was unable to monitor compliance in the manner and to the extent contemplated in the literature, and the data from respondents were judged to be weakly consistent in relation to this indicator.

However, despite this apparent shortcoming, respondents did identify two innovative ways in which the court monitors participants: a) granting a series of adjournments that allow accused persons to improve their circumstances prior to

sentencing; and b) frequently relying on probation as a disposition. In the former, at each scheduled return date, the court officers learn the details of the participant’s progress or lack thereof, and are able to align the disposition with these efforts. In the latter,

participants are monitored by probation officers under specific terms and conditions, and the court can conclude that an absence of reports documenting breaches suggests a degree of success (reflected as the “no news is good news” criterion). Thus, similar to the

previous indicator, the court works around the impediments it faces to achieve a degree of monitoring in ways that reflect its constraints and resources. In so doing, it may not attain the ideal, but neither can it be considered a failure to monitor compliance.

Further, within a diversion perspective, the literature states that MHCs “consider mitigating factors” in designing effective alternatives to punishment. Once again, the presumption of a required array of community resources resulted in the data being

weakly consistent with this indicator. In this regard, the court under study does endeavour to consider such factors for dispositions outside of diversion. For example, it will

consider issues pertaining to housing and substance abuse, and align them with

appropriate responses to the extent possible. However, as reported by most respondents, such attempts are significantly impeded by the lack of resources, as are the prospects of rehabilitation and reintegration.

Thus, with respect to this principle, the MHC Model posits an “ideal” that fails to contemplate the specific demands and impediments faced by the court under study.

Unaligned with the assumption of available resources and diversion as the primary disposition, it logically follows that the associated indicators will be weakly consistent.

However, this is not to say that the court fails to apply this principle to any extent. Rather, the findings demonstrate that the court’s application of this principle reflects the demands and obstacles it faces, and causes it to veer from the prescription of the MHC Model.