HUMAN AND PSYCHOLOGICAL RIGHT (FROM AMERICAN CORRECTIONAL ASSOCIATION - PROCEEDINGS OF THE 106TH ANNUAL CONGRESS OF CORRECTIONS, 1976 - SEE NCJ-49145)

• NCJ Number: 49164
• Author(s): E N BARKIN
• Date Published: 1976
• Length: 12 pages
• Corporate Author: American Correctional Association
• Publication Format: Document
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: *This document is currently unavailable from NCJRS.

Annotation

COURT DECISIONS PERTAINING TO THE RIGHTS OF OFFENDERS COMMITTED TO STATE INSTITUTIONS FOR TREATMENT OF MENTAL ILLNESS OR EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCES ARE REVIEWED.

Abstract

THE DISCUSSION TOUCHES ON THE PROCEDURAL RIGHTS OF OFFENDERS PRIOR TO BEING PLACED IN AN INSTITUTION FOR TREATMENT, THE LENGTH OF TIME FOR WHICH A PATIENT MAY BE COMMITTED, THE QUESTION OF THE COMMITTED PATIENT'S RIGHT TO TREATMENT AND RIGHT TO REFUSE OFFERED TREATMENT, AND THE LEGAL LIABILITY OF THE PROVIDER. U.S. SUPREME COURT AND OTHER COURT DECISIONS RELEVANT TO EACH ISSUE ARE CITED. AMONG THESE DECISIONS ARE THE SUPREME COURT FINDING THAT A PRISONER WHO IS FINISHING A SENTENCE CANNOT BE TRANSFERRED TO A STATE HOSPITAL FOR MENTAL TREATMENT UNLESS THE PROCEDURES APPLICABLE TO PERSONS WHO ARE CIVILLY COMMITTED ARE APPLIED; A LATER DECISION BY THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT APPLYING THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENT TO TRANSFERS DURING THE TERM OF IMPRISONMENT; AND SUPREME COURT DECISIONS INDICATING THAT PRISON ADMINISTRATORS, IN THE ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC RESTRICTIONS, CAN PLACE SENTENCED PRISONERS IN ANY 'REGULAR' INSTITUTION, EITHER INITIALLY OR BY TRANSFER, WITHOUT INVOKING DUE PROCESS PROCEDURES AS LONG AS THE PURPOSE OF THE COMMITMENT IN EACH INSTITUTION REMAINS THE SAME. OTHER DECISIONS CONCERN LIMITATIONS ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES FOR INVOLUNTARY INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF THE MENTALLY ILL; DEFINITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO TREATMENT OF PERSONS COMMITTED INVOLUNTARILY BY CIVIL PROCESS; AND A PERSON'S ENTITLEMENT TO THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE ALTERNATIVE THAT PROVIDES ADEQUATE TREATMENT. DEBATE OVER WHETHER THE RIGHT TO TREATMENT IMPLIES A RIGHT TO REFUSE TREATMENT IS NOTED. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT, WHILE EXPERIMENTAL OR RADICAL TYPES OF TREATMENT SHOULD BE BARRED, CONSERVATIVE TREATMENT WHICH CAN HAVE NO DETRIMENTAL EFFECT AND HAS DEMONSTRATED ITS EFFECTIVENESS IN IMPLEMENTING THE PURPOSE OF COMMITMENT SHOULD BE ALLOWABLE WHETHER THE SUBJECT NEEDING THE TREATMENT AGREES TO IT OR NOT. COURT DECISIONS PERTAINING TO THE LIABILITY OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR RELEASING MENTAL PATIENTS TO THE COMMUNITY ARE ALSO CITED. IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE LAW AND THE DUTIES OF ADMINISTRATORS AS THEY RELATE TO THE RIGHTS OF COMMITTED PERSONS ARE IN A STATE OF FLUX. REFERENCES ARE PROVIDED. (LKM)