In this Foreword, the co-guest editors of this symposium on mental health courts introduce the topic by defining the concept, describing the reasons for its inception, and noting the controversies it has provoked. It then summarizes the articles in the symposium. Finally, the editors, who disagree about the value, effectiveness, and consequences of this new model, air their differences in a dialogue designed to delineate the issues and educate the reader.

Enraged by sex crimes against young children committed by convicted sex offenders the public has demanded that government do whatever is necessary to prevent sexual recidivism. Victims' groups mobilized public opinion and politicians rapidly responded. Since about 1990, policymakers in the United States have adopted two distinct strategies to prevent convicted sex offenders from committing more sex crimes. One strategy emphasizes long-term confinement either in the prison system or in the mental health system. The other strategy relies on information compilation and dissemination. Both strategies assume that sex offenders are more dangerous than other criminals and are likely to reoffend during their entire lives. They also require public officials to predict whether a convicted sex offender will commit another sex crime if released into the community. These strategies present public officials with rather stark choices: confining sex offenders for a very long time or simply releasing them with minimal supervision into the community. This Article explores why it is so difficult to predict when sexual offenders will commit another sex crime. It then proposes the use of sex offender reentry courts to control sex offenders in the community, using a risk-management approach that will protect the community effectively at reasonable cost and also create incentives for sex offenders to seek rehabilitation. Sex offender courts, which are based on principles of Therapeutic Jurisprudence, can provide more intensive community supervision for a much larger group of sex offenders, while at the same time motivating them to change their attitudes and behavior.

The broad reach of therapeutic jurisprudence ('TJ'), which holds that legal rules and procedures often produce psychological and emotional impacts, some positive and some negative, is illustrated in the introduction to this issue. It brings together the various contributions from legal academics, lawyers, judges, criminologists, psychologists, and disability specialists and shows how they will be of interest to academics and practitioners alike.