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. The development of psychological jurisprudence is still in its early stages. However, this situation is not surprising considering the short time period involved, the narrowness of topics chosen for study, the failure to develop an overarching principle, and the fact that subfields within social science in law often differ in their contributions to jurisprudential questions. The three jurisprudential approaches are not necessarily incompatible with one another and ultimately may be combined into a single psychological jurisprudence. Such a jurisprudence is necessary if the benefits of legal psychology are to be fully realized in law. Thus, legal psychologists should frame questions with a view toward advancing psychological jurisprudence. Footnotes and 77 references