INSTITUTIONALIZATION, DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION AND THE ADVERSARY PROCESS

• NCJ Number: 27849
• Journal: Columbia Law Review Volume: 75 Issue: 5 Dated: (JUNE 1975) Pages: 897-912
• Author(s): D L BAZELON
• Date Published: 1975
• Length: 16 pages
• Corporate Author: Columbia University
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

THE AUTHOR DISCUSSES THE ROLE OF THE COURTS IN THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION AND DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION ARGUMENTS FOR DEALING WITH OFFENDERS WHO ARE FOUND NOT CRIMINALLY RESPONSIBLE, OR MENTALLY DISTURBED.

Abstract

INSTITUTIONALIZATION, BECAUSE AN INDIVIDUAL IS IN NEED OF CARE, OR IS DEEMED DANGEROUS, IS OFTEN A RATIONALIZATION FOR PROTECTING SOCIETY WHILE OFFERING LITTLE OR NO TREATMENT. DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION, AS A STANDARDIZED RESPONSE, MAY PROVE DAMAGING TO BOTH SOCIETY AND THE INDIVIDUAL. THE COURTS' CONTRIBUTION IN THIS CONFLICT, ACCORDING TO THE AUTHOR, IS THE ADVERSARY PROCESS, BY WHICH THE COURTS ACKNOWLEDGE THE CONFLICT, AND DECIDE EACH CASE ON ITS OWN MERITS. THE CRITERIA FOR JUDGMENT ARE MADE KNOWN TO THE PUBLIC IN WRITTEN OPINIONS AND THE COMPETING VALUES ARE WELL PUBLICIZED. CONSEQUENTLY, THE JUDGMENTS NEED NOT BE FIXED OR FROZEN, BUT MAY BE ALTERED IN RESPONSE TO NEW INFORMATION, UNDERSTANDING, OR PUBLIC DEMANDS.