Therapeutic jurisprudence: Five dilemmas to ponder.

Abstract

This article identifies and examines 5 conundrums confronting therapeutic jurisprudence. Is therapeutic jurisprudence distinguishable from other jurisprudences that share its goal of using the law to improve the well-being of others (the identity dilemma)? Can the term therapeutic be defined in a meaningful way (the definitional dilemma)? Will the vagaries of empirical research, on which therapeutic jurisprudence heavily relies, doom its proposals (the dilemma of empirical indeterminacy)? How will a therapeutic jurisprudence proposal that benefits only a subgroup of those it affects be implemented (the rule of law dilemma)? When and how should a therapeutic jurisprudence proposal be balanced against countervailing constitutional and social policies (the balancing dilemma)?

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 129 citations exist upstream.