Therapeutic jurisprudence: Five dilemmas to ponder.

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)?