An introductory paper defines the nature of psychological jurisprudence and reviews the three current approaches to the construction of a psychological jurisprudence. These approaches are (1) psychological jurisprudence as put forth by Gary Melton, (2) an emerging jurisprudence put forth by proponents of cognitive science, and (3) therapeutic jurisprudence as detailed by David Wexler and associates. Additional papers discuss therapeutic jurisprudence within a context of changing legal scholarship, the influence of irrational prejudice on legal decisionmaking, and the misuse of social science in analyzing U.S. Supreme Court decisions regarding juvenile capital punishment. Other papers review psycholegal research and challenge current thinking regarding jurisprudence. Tables, footnotes, and chapter reference lists