This book presents a detailed analysis of Hawaii's Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) program. Developed by Judge Steven Alm in Hawaii in 2004, this model of 'swift, certain and fair' justice has been widely adopted across the United States. The book argues that although HOPE has principally been viewed in terms of its deterrent impact, it is in fact best understood through the lens of therapeutic jurisprudence and solution-focused courts, especially drug courts. Bartels presents a detailed overview of HOPE's operation, as well as a critical assessment of the evaluation findings of HOPE and other programs based on this model. Crucially, the book draws on observational research to demonstrate that much of the commentary on HOPE has been based on misunderstandings about the program, and Bartels ultimately provides much-needed in-depth analysis of critiques of the HOPE model. A rigorous study which concludes by identifying key issues for jurisdictions considering implementing the model and areas for future research, this book will be of special interest to scholars of criminal justice, recidivism and drug-related issues.
Rezensionen / Stimmen
"Hailed as a revolution in supervision practice, HOPE programmes have captured the attention of criminologists, jurists, and policy makers around the world. In this impressive book, Lorana Bartels surveys and organises the key research literature on HOPE and combines this with her own insightful fieldwork observations. Instead of examining HOPE through the lens of deterrence theory, as most commentators have, she analyses the programme through the lens of therapeutic jurisprudence, permitting readers to understand HOPE in a new light. Especially important for those in criminal justice or corrections policy, this book should be read by anyone interested in HOPE or its analogues." (James C. Oleson, Associate Professor of Criminology, The University of Auckland, New Zealand)
"This is an excellent work that demonstrates how the HOPE probation program, though often thought to be structured solely around the goal of "deterrence", can and should be administered in keeping withmuch broader criminological objectives. In fact, Bartels writes convincingly about how such matters as "dynamic risk factors" are attended to, and how "strength-based" approaches are effectively used to animate probationers. In other words, although there is a strict deterrent mechanism underpinning the HOPE project, Bartels notes how commentators and critics often fail to consider how HOPE draws criminological clout from the wider perspective of therapeutic jurisprudence: judges and other actors are encouraged to embrace an ethic of care in their interaction with probationers, to apply the law therapeutically and, to avail themselves of legal provisions (i.e. allowing for early termination of probation for worthy participants) expressly designed to further therapeutic and rehabilitative ends. Readers should surely be deterred in the future from mischaracterizing HOPE!" (David B. Wexler, Professor of Law, University of Puerto Rico; Distinguished Research Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Arizona; and Director, International Network on Therapeutic Jurisprudence)
