What restrictions exist for generally held social and political rights, in case of mental illness?
Given a national Constitution and the UN Human Rights, what restrictions or special provisions exist allowing for citizens deemed suffering of mental illness? This probably is not a new issue as the Eastern Block of old confined prisoners of conscience, and the China of today puts petitioners, into state run psychiatric facilities. What does the Philosophy of Law say in such instances?
Joe Finkle said,
Wrote on October 29, 2010 @ 9:52 am
Well, in the US, you generally need clear and convincing evidence that someone needs to be confined before having them committed against their will. It can be done in an emergency, but they must be released after a few days unless there is a hearing or it’s a violation of their procedural due process rights and they can petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Clear and convincing evidence is the highest standard applicable to civil law. It is not quite the beyond a reasonable doubt standard of criminal law, but it’s close, and considered by US courts to be sufficient to deprive a person of their freedom in cases where they are a danger to themselves or others due to mental illness.
Other rights can be taken away in a hearing, if a person is deemed incompetent to make certain types of decisions as well, but the standards vary depending on the state and the right.
Internationally, I couldn’t really say, each nation is different and the rules vary very widely.
As for the philosophy, legal philosophy was never really my specialty, I studied metaphysics in college. I’m not really sure what legal philosophy would say about the subject apart from the American Jurisprudence discussed above.
Frst Grade Rocks! Ω said,
Wrote on October 29, 2010 @ 10:01 am
In the US, to be confined, you have to be an imminent danger to either yourself or to others. And as Joe Finkle stated, it has to established by clear and convincing evidence. At least in California, you also have the right to a jury, and to relitigate the whole mess on a regular basis (once a year).
Prior to trial, a judge can keep you confined on a temporary basis. The police can also have you kept off the streets for 3 days prior to initial seeing a judge.
I believe that in either the late 1960s or early 70s, there was a profound change in the legal aspects of treating mental illness. The legal philosophy change from instituting people to letting them out on the streets. It has some drawbacks. Many in our homeless population suffer from mental illness, but they are not an imminent threat to themselves or others. They would be better off if they were in a half-way house where they would be required to receive some treatment.