دکتر علی عزیزی

Problem-Solving Courts with a specialized and independent structure were established in some countries with common law legal system to use the authority of courts to address the underlying problems of offenders and victims, the structural problems of the justice system, and the social problems of communities and finally to reduce the recidivism rate. However, because they reach only a small proportion of litigants compared to the traditional courts, the idea of applying core principles of problem-solving courts to traditional courts was put forward. This article, with a qualitative method, first examines the necessity of problem-solving approach in judicial system and then analyses the opportunities and barriers to applying problem-solving principles and practices in traditional criminal courts of Iran. The findings of the research show that some principles like changing traditional attitudes and role orientations of judges, prosecutors, attorneys, and other justice system actors is the basis for adopting problem-solving approach in traditional criminal courts of Iran and it can hardly be transferred, but enhancing the direct interaction between judges and litigants is the most easiest. Moreover, resource constraints (lack of time, money, and staff) and educational and electronic systems limitations pose serious barriers in implementation of other principles and effectiveness of problem-solving approach. Tangible results show that the application of these principles and indicators can help increase the quality and effectiveness of the criminal justice procedure and reduce its non-therapeutic consequences.

After Punitive, Rehabilitative and Restorative models in the criminal justice system, recently a “worldwide trend” has been established in the judicial system of common law towards the use of more optimal and comprehensive methods, which has been respectively called “the Comprehensive Law Movement” in the USA and “Non-adversarial Justice” in the Australia. Accordingly, “Problem-Solving” or “Collaborative Justice” courts with reparative-therapeutic approach was established to address the underlying legal problems of defendant/offender. With a comprehensive look at the offender, victim and community, simultaneously use of therapeutic and community-based methods and mentioned triple models and without withdrawal traditional sanctions, these courts are trying to addressing defendants’ social, psychological, medical, and economic underlying problems. Meanwhile they seek to achieve the main purpose of the criminal justice system –crime prevention and rehabilitation of offenders- through minimizing the damages caused by laws, legal rules, legal procedures, legal roles and judicial practices. To increase the effectiveness of decisions, orders and verdicts, some criminal justice systems like Iran while keep traditional structures of present criminal courts and without using the specialized problem-solving courts has transferred some of the problem-solving principles directly to their laws or indirectly to their judicial practicies. This paper By using content analysis, analytical and descriptive method and library resources is trying to extract common principles of problem-solving courts and analyze the legal potentials of problem-solving in Iranian judicial system through a comparative study with Common Law System.

After various approaches dealing with the crimes, some countries in common law legal system have adopted a therapeutic-judicial approach and established courts called "problem-Solving courts". The first model of these courts was Miami-Dade County Drug Treatment Court in 1989 which with a therapeutic-judicial approach was trying to address the offenders' underlying problems with addiction or substance abuse issues. The idea of adopting this model in the criminal justice and health care systems led to planning and implementing a pilot project in Iran named "Iranian Drug Treatment Court" jointly by the Judiciary and the State Welfare Organization in 2017. This article with emphasis on Tehran Drug Treatment Court seeks to evaluate and analyze the process of "planning" and "implementing" of this model in Iran by using a "descriptive-analytical" method and reviewing all documents written for this project as well as other related regulations. The results of the research show that the common law model of drug treatment courts has not been correctly adopted, and problem solving principles and their legal capacities in Iran have been somehow neglected. Meanwhile, the project has not been completely implemented in accordance with the criteria and indicators specified in its relevant documents.