Procedural Justice and Therapeutic Jurisprudence in Idaho Drug Treatment Courts

This qualitative multi-case study of the operations of Idaho drug treatment courts explores the application of two theoretical frameworks: therapeutic jurisprudence and procedural justice. Semi-structured interviews, based on a phronetic iterative approach and analysis, were conducted with 20 enrolled participants and 10 judges from courts and communities of varying sizes, located in four geographic areas of Idaho. Responses suggest that these courts operate from a foundation of therapeutic jurisprudence and effectively apply procedural justice practices: respectful treatment, trust, and participant voice. The study identifies participants’ multiple life changes, including addiction recovery, as important elements of the courts’ outcomes and validates the courts’ therapeutic jurisprudence foundation. The study suggests opportunities to further strengthen aspects of neutral decision-making, including improving participant understanding of drug court processes and balancing consistent decisions with individual needs of participants. It identifies and explores judges’ emotional labor, including the emotional toll of their long-term engagement with drug court participants. Recommendations address training in procedural justice practices, balancing decision consistency with individualized sanction practices, and assuring participants receive an orientation to the processes and requirements of the drug treatment court. In addition, recommendations for further research include assessing participant access to evidence-based substance use disorder treatment and identifying strategies for mitigating the emotional toll and burnout exposure experienced by drug treatment court judges.