Therapeutic justice is an interdisciplinary approach that examines law and legal processes through their psychological, emotional, and social effects. Initially conceived by David B. Wexler and Bruce J. Winick in the 1980s, it proposes that legal rules and the actions of legal operators can serve as either therapeutic or antitherapeutic agents. This article reviews the conceptual foundations, practical applications, connections with restorative justice, and future challenges of this framework, emphasizing the humanization of law and the need to incorporate interdisciplinary perspectives. Recent contributions are also included, showing how this paradigm has expanded into fields such as criminal, civil, medical, and correctional justice.

Full article

Therapeutic Justice: Towards a Law That Also Heals

Introduction

Justice is often conceived as a neutral mechanism of rules and sanctions, yet in practice it produces significant emotional and social effects. Therapeutic jurisprudence emerges as a field of study and practice that evaluates the impact of law on the psychological and emotional health of individuals. From its beginnings, it has been understood as a framework that does not replace due process but complements it by introducing a focus on well-being, rehabilitation, and social cohesion (Wexler, 1990). Today, recent research demonstrates that this perspective has permeated new areas, from the resolution of medical disputes to child protection cases, confirming its relevance and transformative capacity (Kierstead, 2025; Cambridge University Press, 2025).

Conceptual Foundations

The concept of therapeutic jurisprudence was developed in the 1980s by David B. Wexler and Bruce J. Winick, who emphasized the psychological and emotional dimensions of law. According to their theory, laws and procedures can operate as therapeutic agents when they foster trust, rehabilitation, and dignity, or as antitherapeutic agents when they produce unnecessary suffering, stigmatization, or distrust (Wexler, 1992; Winick & Wexler, 2003). Wexler used the metaphor of the “bottle and the liquid”: legal rules are the bottles, and the professional techniques are the liquid they contain. Depending on how they are applied, they may heal or harm.

Therapeutic jurisprudence seeks to integrate psychological and social considerations into legal analysis without undermining fundamental guarantees. In recent years, its theoretical foundations have been expanded with contributions from the ethics of care, which reinforce its normative dimension and highlight the importance of sensitivity toward the vulnerability of litigants (Tandfonline, 2025). Recent studies also emphasize the need to adapt this framework for specific populations, such as persons with disabilities, ensuring more inclusive and equitable access to legal proceedings (Segal, 2025).

An Interdisciplinary Approach

Therapeutic jurisprudence requires the collaboration of multiple disciplines, including psychology, psychiatry, sociology, social work, and education. This interdisciplinarity is essential to grasp the complexity of legal conflicts and their repercussions. Core principles include empathy, active listening, respect for human dignity, and a constructive attitude on the part of legal professionals. Judges, prosecutors, and lawyers are no longer viewed merely as technical actors but as relational agents capable of building trust and facilitating meaningful participation.

Recent scholarship has emphasized the importance of trauma-informed judicial practices, particularly in child protection cases, where decisions profoundly affect children’s emotional development (Kierstead, 2025). This perspective illustrates how law can reduce revictimization by incorporating compassionate language and communication strategies.

Practical Applications

One of the most relevant expressions of therapeutic jurisprudence is the development of drug treatment courts, first established in the United States in the 1980s and later replicated in other countries. These courts approach crime as a public health issue, prioritizing rehabilitation over punishment. In this model, the judge takes on an active role as part of an interdisciplinary team that includes psychologists, social workers, and health professionals. Empirical studies have shown that this model significantly reduces recidivism and is more effective and cost-efficient than traditional incarceration (Marlowe, 2010).

Beyond drug courts, therapeutic jurisprudence has expanded into areas such as family law, where divorce and custody processes are managed with less hostility and greater focus on constructive agreements; juvenile justice, where educational and preventive measures take precedence over punitive sanctions; and corrections, where initiatives such as the therapeutic prison at Grendon in the United Kingdom demonstrate how psychotherapeutic programs can improve rehabilitation and reduce reoffending (The Guardian, 2024).

Therapeutic justice has also been applied in the mediation of medical disputes, where flexibility, voluntary participation, and a focus on the well-being of the parties provide more constructive paths to conflict resolution (Cambridge University Press, 2025).

Therapeutic Justice and Restorative Justice

Therapeutic justice maintains a close relationship with restorative justice, although they emphasize different dimensions. Restorative justice focuses on repairing harm, voluntary participation, and building consensus (Zehr, 2002), while therapeutic justice concentrates more on the psychological and emotional effects of judicial processes on those involved. Nevertheless, they share essential principles such as humanizing law, fostering respectful dialogue, ensuring procedural fairness, and promoting social reconstruction.

Recent studies suggest that integrating the two approaches can generate particularly effective synergies. Restorative practices reinforce the relational and collective dimension of the process, while therapeutic jurisprudence ensures that the outcomes promote emotional well-being and psychological health. This convergence has been especially visible in juvenile and community justice programs that aim both to repair harm and rehabilitate offenders.

Challenges and Future Directions

The development of therapeutic jurisprudence faces multiple challenges. Strengthening the training of judges, prosecutors, and lawyers in empathetic communication and applied psychology is crucial. Clear protocols are also needed to define roles within interdisciplinary teams, along with empirical evaluation tools to measure effectiveness and avoid implementation biases.

A major cultural challenge remains: justice continues to be widely perceived as a purely punitive apparatus. Overcoming this view requires social awareness and institutional reforms that systematically integrate therapeutic and restorative practices. Recent proposals highlight the expansion of specialized problem-solving courts and the creation of the “theralegal” actor, combining legal expertise with therapeutic knowledge (Cohen, 2024).

Current trends also point toward consolidating trauma-informed judicial practices, addressing the needs of vulnerable populations, and creating more inclusive courtroom environments. These initiatives demonstrate that the field is not only expanding but also constantly evolving.

Conclusion

Therapeutic jurisprudence represents a paradigm shift in contemporary law. It proposes that justice should not only regulate and sanction but also heal, rehabilitate, and strengthen social cohesion. It does not seek to weaken due process guarantees but rather to enrich them with a more humane and effective perspective.

In a context where justice is often perceived as distant or cold, this approach restores centrality to the individual, reminding us that each legal case is also a human story. Its greatest contribution lies in offering a model of law that, beyond resolving disputes, actively contributes to individual and collective well-being. The incorporation of recent approaches—including the ethics of care, trauma-informed practices, accessibility for persons with disabilities, and therapeutic correctional models—confirms that therapeutic justice is not a static framework but an evolving proposal that continues to gain relevance in the 21st century.