Procedural Fairness in Treatment Courts: JSI’s Presentation on Justice Reform in Japan 

The Justice Speakers Institute (JSI) envisions promoting justice and the rule of law worldwide by serving as the essential global resource on justice issues. In pursuit of this vision, JSI founders were pleased to travel to Tokyo, Japan, to interview Yasuhiro Maruyama, a Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Rissho University, and a leading expert on therapeutic jurisprudence in Japan.

Professor Maruyama also invited us to deliver an afternoon-long presentation to members of the Therapeutic Jurisprudence Center of Japan on the same day as the podcast interview. The audience included professors, researchers, and defense lawyers, some of whom traveled from as far as Osaka and other areas of Japan.

Professor Makoto Ibusuki, Director of the Research Center for Therapeutic Jurisprudence at Seijo University, requested permission to record the presentation for later publication, which we were delighted to grant.  Professor Masahiko Mizuto of Yamaguchi Prefecture University kindly translated the entire session.

We Are JSI

At Professor Maruyama’s request, we began by describing JSI and its philosophy. We then proceeded to discuss the nature of Treatment Courts in the United States, and finally their connection to procedural fairness and therapeutic jurisprudence.

We began by recounting the origins of JSI, including a mention of our late partner, Judge Peggy Hora, and how she and Professor Maruyama developed their relationship. Both David Wallace and Judge Brian MacKenzie also shared our individual legal journeys that led us to work in Treatment Courts.

Treatment Courts

Next, we provided a detailed discussion on the evolution of Treatment Courts in the United States. We explained how Treatment Courts began as an innovative response to the growing challenges of substance use and mental health issues within the criminal justice system. We highlighted how traditional punitive approaches often failed to address the underlying causes of criminal behavior, and how the Treatment Court model combined judicial oversight with therapeutic support, offering participants treatment and supervision instead of incarceration.

We then reviewed how, over time, the success of Drug Courts in reducing recidivism and improving outcomes inspired the development of other specialized courts, including Mental Health Courts, Veterans’ Treatment Courts, and Family Treatment Courts. We concluded by explaining how these courts now operate across the United States, each focusing on specific populations with tailored interventions designed to promote rehabilitation, improve public safety, and reduce the strain on the criminal justice system.

Treatment Courts and Procedural Fairness

At one point, some attendees began wondering how the presentation related to the concepts of therapeutic jurisprudence. In response, we explained the impact of procedural fairness within Treatment Courts.

As a subset of therapeutic jurisprudence, procedural fairness—sometimes called procedural justice—refers to the fairness of courtroom processes used to make decisions, particularly within the judicial context. It emphasizes transparency, consistency, and the opportunity for all parties to be heard, ensuring that decisions are based on rules and principles applied equally to everyone. The four key components of procedural fairness include having a voice in the proceedings, the right to a neutral decision-maker, respectful treatment, and authorities who visibly behave in a trustworthy manner. By fostering trust in the system, procedural fairness not only supports the legitimacy of legal decisions but also encourages greater cooperation and compliance from those involved, ultimately strengthening the integrity and effectiveness of the justice system as a whole.

Procedural Fairness in the Treatment Court

We discussed how applying procedural fairness in the Treatment Court context has led to improved outcomes. While successful Treatment Courts are shaped by many factors, research clearly shows that the interaction between a judge and a participant is central to achieving positive results. This bond is not simply a result of a judge’s personality but depends on the nature of the judge-participant relationship. Studies show that different judges yield different results, with significant variations in participant re-arrest rates depending on the judge. For Treatment Courts to maximize their impact, it is essential to apply the principles of procedural fairness.  

We concluded that, while other methods of deterrence and treatment motivation play supportive roles, Treatment Courts could likely achieve even better outcomes by consistently applying the four principles of procedural fairness. Their application strongly correlates with reductions in drug use, criminal behavior, and probation violations, underscoring their importance in the success of treatment courts.

At the end of the presentation, a lively discussion ensued. Questions arose about how to apply procedural fairness principles in Japan, given the country’s punitive philosophy within its criminal justice system.

Conclusion

The presentation concluded as several attendees joined us for dinner, where the discussion continued for several hours afterwards. 

This was a fantastic opportunity for JSI to meet with all of these individuals currently involved with justice in Japan, who are looking for ways for the criminal justice system in Japan to promote effective justice. 

About the Justice Speakers Institute

JSI is the essential resource for speakers, trainers, consultants, analysts, researchers, and writers on justice issues, including criminal and civil law, procedural justice, and therapeutic jurisprudence, across local and international jurisdictions. 

It is the mission of the Justice Speakers Institute to be the essential resource on justice issues worldwide.