No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
“The ladder of the law has no top and no bottom”: How therapeutic jurisprudence can give life to international human rights
... The importance of this chapter is its consideration of international non-state legislation which has been designed to improve conditions of women in prison. Prisons provide a textbook example of antitherapeutic conditions (Perlin, 2014). Implicitly anti-therapeutic conditions have been recognised within the United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-Custodial Measures for Women Offenders (Bangkok Rules, 2010). ...
... Violence against women and violations of human rights are associated with the conditions and treatment of prisoners. It has been claimed that conditions in prisons across the world can shock and in some instances are so bereft of humanity that they challenge the notion we are a civilised society (Perlin, 2014). Scholars have questioned the applicability of individual rights by claiming that rights are not translated into a reality and a feminist transformation needs to occur if human rights are going to respond to women's needs (Barberet, 2014;Tiefenburn, 2012 ;Walby, 2011). ...
... Practitioners have the potential to improve the rights of female prisoners using TJ principles, which aim to empower, enhance rights and promote well-being (Perlin, 2014). Using the TJ lens means practitioners have a role that is therapeutic rather than anti-therapeutic. ...
Law is a multi-dimensional aspect of modern society that constantly shifts and changes over time. In recent years, the practice of therapeutic jurisprudence has increased significantly as a valuable discipline. Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Overcoming Violence Against Women is a comprehensive reference source for the latest scholarly research on the strategic role of jurisprudential practices to benefit women and protect women’s rights. Highlighting a range of perspectives on topics such as reproductive rights, workplace safety, and victim-offender overlap, this book is ideally designed for academics, practitioners, policy makers, students, and practitioners seeking research on utilizing the law as a social force in modern times.
... Demographic changes occurring across the European Union mean that, by 2050, the population aged 65 years or more will increase to almost 130 million [1] (p. 16). By 2070, it is estimated that 30% of the European population will be aged 65 or more, up from approximately 20% currently, while the proportion of the population over 80 years is projected to double [2] (p. ...
... The CRPD is considered a "revolutionary" treaty [15,16], since it "precipitated a dramatic sea change in the relative human rights empowerment of persons with disabilities by recognizing their equal dignity, autonomy, and worth, and by ensuring their equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms" [17] (p. 2). ...
Understanding the complexity of informed consent processes is critically important to the success of research that requires participants to test, develop, or inform research data and results. This is particularly evident in research involving persons experiencing neurodegenerative diseases (e.g., Alzheimer’s disease, dementia) that impair cognitive functioning, who according to national law are considered to have a diminished capacity, or to lack the capacity, to consent to research participation. Those who would potentially benefit most from applied research participation may be excluded from participating and shaping data and outcomes. This article offers insights into challenges faced by the Smart and Healthy Ageing through People Engaging in Supportive Systems (SHAPES) Project in obtaining the consent of older persons, including older persons with disabilities. The promotion of continuing health, active ageing, and independent living is central to SHAPES, requiring project partners to reflect on traditional informed consent approaches to encourage the full, cognisant participation of older persons with disabilities. We examine how this issue may be addressed, with reference to the inclusive approach of SHAPES. In respecting the inalienable legal capacity of all legal persons, SHAPES uses the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and the human rights model of disability as part of the theoretical framework. A novel, inclusive, representative informed consent framework was designed and is detailed herein. This framework provides significant opportunity to advance the inclusion of persons with disabilities or those experiencing neurodegenerative diseases in innovative research and is readily transferable to other research studies. The SHAPES approach is a substantial contribution to research on informed consent, demonstrating the utility of the human rights model of disability in facilitating the full research participation of target populations.
... First developed in the 1990's by David Wexler and Bruce Winick, therapeutic jurisprudence has, according to some commentators, become one of the most important theoretical approaches to the law (Perlin, 2014). It is argued that therapeutic jurisprudence has created a sea-change in thinking about the adversarial model, about the criminal trial process and the relationship between laws and those regulated by laws, and the way lawyers think about themselves and their roles (Perlin, 2014;Wexler, 2008). ...
... First developed in the 1990's by David Wexler and Bruce Winick, therapeutic jurisprudence has, according to some commentators, become one of the most important theoretical approaches to the law (Perlin, 2014). It is argued that therapeutic jurisprudence has created a sea-change in thinking about the adversarial model, about the criminal trial process and the relationship between laws and those regulated by laws, and the way lawyers think about themselves and their roles (Perlin, 2014;Wexler, 2008). ...
This article addresses whether autonomy is being adequately protected within therapeutic jurisprudence models. It first outlines the history and theory of therapeutic jurisprudence - noting that protection for autonomy has been theorised as a key component of therapeutic jurisprudence. It then examines therapeutic jurisprudence in light of critical disability theory and identifies that traditional therapeutic models, which often prioritises the decision-making of professionals, can undermine the autonomy of the individual. The article then describes the protection for autonomy provided by the right to legal capacity in Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. An analysis is undertaken of practical examples of where therapeutic jurisprudence falls short of the demands of Article 12. Finally, the article presents solutions for how therapeutic jurisprudence models could better protect autonomy via respect for the right to legal capacity in Article 12.
... The United Nations (UN) adopted the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD or 'the Convention') in 2006. The CRPD is considered a groundbreaking treaty, which 'sets out explicitly the many steps that States must take to create an enabling environment so that persons with disabilities can enjoy authentic equality in society' [1]. The CRPD recognises that 'disability results from the interaction between persons with impairments and attitudinal and environmental barriers that hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others' (Article 1(2) CRPD) and revolves around the key principles of dignity and autonomy, equality, accessibility, and participation [2,3]. ...
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) establishes that people with disabilities shall enjoy their human rights on an equal basis with others. Those rights include the right to legal capacity and to protection against discrimination, including intersectional and multiple forms of discrimination on the basis of disability and gender. In an effort to support the realisation of the CRPD, the United Nations team in Serbia undertook a project to address the implementation of these rights under the UN Partnership on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNPRPD) programme. Namely, by bringing together stakeholders from the UN, government and civil society, the UNPRPD project in Serbia sought to create structural changes to uphold the rights of people with disabilities. With a view of understanding the process of change within, rather than the outcomes of, this UPRPD project, twenty-eight semi-structured interviews were conducted using the Most Significant Change Technique (MSCT) with key stakeholders involved in such a project. The interviews were analysed using Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) to preserve the unique and diverse perspectives of participants who had differing roles across the project. The analysis allowed us to identify a number of facets of the process that facilitate structural change: coalition-building events; strengthening stakeholder capacity and relationships; the participation of persons with disabilities; and innovation in terms of what made the project significant, novel and in itself a change. All these facets are discussed in this article, with the purpose of supporting global efforts in alignment with the CRPD. On the whole, this article aims to support a better understanding of disability-inclusive development projects in line with the CRPD and to give evidence on how countries may begin to tackle the structural exclusion of persons with disabilities in society.
... Although there has been considerable academic and practical interest in both the concept of therapeutic jurisprudence (sometimes TJ; see e.g., Wexler, 1990;Wexler & Winick, 1996) and the utility of problem-solving courts in nations beyond the United States (see e.g., Thom & Nakarada-Kordic, 2014;Nolan, 2010), there has been little such interest in the application of TJ to international human rights law (but see Perlin, 2014;Perlin, 2016a;Perlin, 2016b;Birgden, 2016;Birgden, 2015;Rees, 2003). And what interest there is rarely touches on the topic that is central to this paper: the application of TJ to interregional human rights tribunals, and the extent to which such tribunals can (or should), if at all, operate as problem-solving courts. ...
There is a need for a disability rights tribunal in Asia (DRTAP) along with an information center (DRICAP) as part of that tribunal so that litigants can easily access the controlling domestic case law, statutes, and regulations of the participating nations. A successful DRTAP must be premised on therapeutic jurisprudence (TJ) principles, and that its creation would be hollow without dedicated and knowledgeable lawyers representing the population in question. In accordance with TJ principles, it must incorporate “voice, validation and voluntary participation” to insure that litigants have a sense of voice or a chance to tell their story to a decision maker. The tribunal must operate, in part, as a problem-solving court to address the underlying problems—not just the symptoms—of social issues such as substance abuse, domestic violence, child abuse, and mental illness. The idea of such courts has been exported to other nations. If the DRTAP operates in a manner consistent with these principles—following the best examples of domestic mental health courts and community courts—it will more likely fulfill the TJ mandate. The application of TJ will ensure the reshaping of legal rules, procedures, and lawyers’ roles to enhance their therapeutic potential without subordinating due process principles.
... It is interdisciplinary in nature, utilizing knowledge from sciences, such as psychiatry, criminology, anthropology, and psychology (Wexler, 2008). Therapeutic Jurisprudence is one of the most recognized law theories in the world (Perlin, 2014). It humanized the application of the law. ...
Individual of legal age with schizophrenia presenting anosognosia was abandoned, as a result of a court decision. Close family members were not allowed to provide medical follow-up, treatment, protection regarding his vulnerability, and preserve the dignity of their loved one. The issue was the court's prioritization of the autonomy of the individual over his mental health status. The purpose of this case study was to identify the pitfalls of a court case seeking medical follow-up and treatment for a family member with schizophrenia and anosognosia. The method was qualitative and the design was descriptive and instrumental, linking the law to the life experience resulting from the procedures for its implementation. This study examined the difference between clinical and medical-legal evaluation of the examinee. The application of the Therapeutic Jurisprudence principles to the high number of schizophrenia cases with anosognosia, the abandonment of the mentally ill, and family crisis call healthcare providers and the Judiciary for an improvement action of the process of guardianship.
... On the other hand, as is the case with the therapeutic approach, there remains an inherent tension between therapeutic potential and due process principles (Perlin, 2014). As was evident in the current study, revocation rates were high, and under the current law, reincarceration occurs without due process. ...
... It is interdisciplinary in nature, utilizing knowledge from sciences, such as psychiatry, criminology, anthropology, and psy- chology (Wexler, 2008). Therapeutic Jurisprudence is one of the most recognized law theories in the world (Perlin, 2014). It humanized the application of the law. ...
Background
Often, therapeutic relationships are crosscultural in nature, which places both nurses and patients at risk for stress, depression, and anxiety.
Objectives
The purpose of this investigation was to describe novice nurses' level of global interdependence identity, as manifested by worldminded attitudes, and identify the strongest predictors of worldminded attitudes.
Design
Prospective descriptive with multiple regression study.
Setting
The various nursing units of a large hospital in the great XXXXXX area, XX.
Participants
The participants were novice nurses up to two years after graduation from nursing school and employed as hospital clinicians.
Methods
Descriptive statistics with the mean and standard deviation of the scores was used for the delineation of the development of the participants. The study relied on a survey instrument, the Scale to Measure Worldminded Attitudes developed by Sampson and Smith (1957). The numerical data was scored and organized on a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 21 was the program used to assist with analysis. The assessment of the models created through regression was completed using the model summary and analysis of variance (ANOVA).
Results
The nurses' mean level of global interdependence identity was slightly above the neutral point between extreme national-mindedness and full development of global interdependence identity. The best predictors of worldminded attitudes were immigration, patriotism, and war conceptualized under a global frame of reference.
Conclusion
Novice nurses did not demonstrate an optimum developmental status of global interdependence identity to safeguard cross-cultural encounters with patients. The recommendation is the inclusion of immigration, patriotism, and war in the nursing curriculum and co-curriculum to promote student development and a turnaround improvement in patient experience.
This paper explores the use of mediation in medical treatment disputes through the lens of therapeutic justice (TJ), a concept developed in the 1990s to consider the therapeutic and anti-therapeutic effects of justice systems. The paper argues that mediation may be a mechanism for achieving therapeutic effects for people involved in medical treatment disputes. In doing so, the paper highlights the conflict that can often arise between healthcare professionals, family members and patients in medical treatment disputes and the related difficulties with using litigation to resolve this type of conflict. It has been suggested by judges, academics and policy-makers that mediation might be a better way of resolving conflict in these cases. While mediation and TJ have much in common, the paper explores the many tensions between them, considering ways in which mediation might need to be done differently to achieve therapeutic aims. Finally, the paper identifies six TJ features against which mediation can be tested to consider whether it can live up to the claims that it can be used to resolve medical treatment disputes more therapeutically.
Women offenders may suffer from numerous violations of basic rights within the prison system. They are vulnerable for sexual assaults including rape, molestation and sexual bullies. They may also lack basic medical and hygienic amenities. While international conventions and rules like United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-Custodial Measures for Women Offenders (Bangkok Rules, 2010) offers guidelines for protection of the rights of women prisoners, still there has been no research which explores the therapeutic jurisprudential values of such rules. This chapter suggests that the therapeutic jurisprudential approach of the domestic and international laws, conventions and guidelines must be understood by the practitioners, activists and other stakeholders who may in turn; make use of the therapeutic jurisprudential values to improve the condition of women prisoners.
Women offenders may suffer from numerous violations of basic rights within the prison system. They are vulnerable for sexual assaults including rape, molestation and sexual bullies. They may also lack basic medical and hygienic amenities. While international conventions and rules like United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-Custodial Measures for Women Offenders (Bangkok Rules, 2010) offers guidelines for protection of the rights of women prisoners, still there has been no research which explores the therapeutic jurisprudential values of such rules. This chapter suggests that the therapeutic jurisprudential approach of the domestic and international laws, conventions and guidelines must be understood by the practitioners, activists and other stakeholders who may in turn; make use of the therapeutic jurisprudential values to improve the condition of women prisoners.
Persons institutionalized in forensic psychiatric facilities have been hidden from the public view for decades – physically, socially, and legally. The forensic population also faces multiple forms of discrimination, both for their criminal history and mental illness. This reality must be radically reconsidered in light of the ratification of the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), the first legally binding instrument devoted to the comprehensive protection of the rights of persons with disabilities. There has been, however, virtually no attention paid by criminologists to the potential impact of this Convention on forensic populations. In this paper, we will highlight some of the key issues that must be examined in this context, and examine the issues in question through the lens of therapeutic jurisprudence. We will focus, in part, on the lack of attorneys and advocates who represent this population, the lack of attention paid to this issue by the “psychiatric survivor” movement, and the special problems faced by forensic patients who are intellectually disabled. Additionally, we will explore social attitudes towards forensic patients, the reasons why this population is often left behind as new paradigms in mental health and human rights continue to emerge, and why is it essential that criminologists begin to take this issue seriously.
Forensic patients have traditionally been hidden from view of the public, the legal system and the mental health system, a set of circumstances that has, for the most part, been fine with all parties (for a variety of reasons, none of which inure to the benefit of those institutionalised). Very little of the “civil rights revolution” that has made civil psychiatric hospitals and facilities for persons with intellectual disabilities less hidden from view (and has led to those individuals raising their voices in protest of dehumanising conditions, after decades/centuries of being silenced) has had a spillover impact on those in forensic facilities. The ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)—when read in light of the Convention Against Torture (CAT)—makes it more likely, for the first time, that attention will be paid to the conditions of confinement, worldwide, of this population, how those conditions regularly violate international human rights law and how those who are in charge of these institutions do so with impunity. In this chapter, I focus on the relationship between the CRPD and the CAT in questions related to the treatment of institutionalised forensic patients (those admitted to psychiatric institutions following involvement in the criminal justice system) and highlight some of the key issues that must be examined in this context. I argue further that shedding light on the deplorable conditions on forensic facilities and spreading awareness about the treatment in which patients are subjected is the first step in ensuring equality and reducing the stigma of mental illness. I also consider these issues in the context of the theory of therapeutic jurisprudence and conclude that the current state of affairs violates the precepts of that school of legal thought.
The law can be a systemically induced decision point for offenders and can act to help or hinder desistance. Desistance can be described as a change process that may be initiated by decisive momentum, supported by intervention, and maintained through re-entry, culminating in a citizen with full rights and responsibilities. Desistance within courts, corrections, and beyond is maximized by applying the law in a therapeutic manner. In common, desistance, therapeutic jurisprudence, and human rights support offender autonomy and well-being. The intersections between the three models have been explored to propose a normative framework that provides principles and offers strategies to address therapeutic legal rules, legal procedures, and the role of psycholegal actors and offenders in initiating, supporting, and maintaining desistance.
In Australia, the community response to sexual offenders is marked by uncertainty as to whether offenders should be incarcerated as punishment or provided treatment in order to reduce the likelihood of re-offense. The incarceration of sexual offenders results in particular management, ethical, and political issues. Nevertheless incarceration can provide leverage to encourage the offender to participate in treatment while delivering punishment for wrongdoing and acting to protect the community. In the state of Victoria the CORE Sex Offender Programs have developed a statewide strategy in the public correctional system in order to assess, manage, and treat male sexual offenders. However, such offenders are notoriously reluctant to engage in treatment to address offending behaviors. A critical element of the strategy has been the Victorian Adult Parole Board, an entity that can determine that an offender needs to engage in treatment before he is considered for parole. Using the therapeutic jurisprudence framework as outlined by Wexler (1990), strategies to minimize the anti-therapeutic effects of the Victorian Adult Parole Board and maximize the therapeutic effects of the CORE Sex Offender Programs are highlighted.
The ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) radically changes the scope of international human rights law as it applies to all persons with disabilities. It is most significantly changed in the area of mental disability law. Always marginalized, individuals with mental disabilities have always been “outsiders” in the world of international human rights law, with many important global human rights agencies traditionally expressing little or no interest in the plight of this cohort. Internationally, persons in forensic mental health systems generally receive, if this even seems possible, less humane services than do civil patients. Prisoners with mental disabilities are treated inhumanely in most nations, both in correctional facilities and in forensic mental health facilities. Advocates have begun to consider whether the CRPD can potentially remediate this situation, but ratification is too recent to see much concrete change. One potential remedy lies in the expanded use of mental health courts as a means of 1) infusing therapeutic jurisprudence (TJ) into the legal process; 2) assuring that the standards of the CRPD are met; and 3) treating persons with mental disabilities with dignity in the court process. There are now multiple mental health courts in the United States, as well as others in Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia, but few in civil law nations. Advocates should seize upon the ratification of the CRPD as a launching pad for an international movement to create such courts to emulate the successes of those in common law nations that have operated with dignity using a TJ model while adhering to civil rights and civil liberties principles. This chapter seeks to explore the intersection between international human rights and the mental health court movement. I begin here, however, with a cautionary note. Notwithstanding the potential great value that mental health courts have for persons with mental disabilities involved in the criminal justice system, it is essential that these courts do not lose their original focus as therapeutic jurisprudence-based courts, and that judges and court administrators resist the temptation to use these courts as coercive vehicles through which to simply expedite case dispositions without any meaningful attention being paid to issues of civil rights, civil liberties, dignity and autonomy. This warning underscores the importance of the responsibility on mental health court judges and administrators to consider the impact of the CRPD – and international human rights law, in general -- on the operation of these courts, especially regarding issues of potentially coercive treatment.It is time to restructure the dialogue about mental health courts and to (1) consider whether the development of such courts will finally allow us to move away from society’s predominant opinion that mental illness reflects a defect of morality or will, (2) take seriously the potential ameliorative impact of such courts on the ultimate disposition of cases involving criminal defendants with mental disabilities, (3) assess the impact that such courts might have on the extent to which individuals are treated with dignity in the court process.I remain a strong supporter of mental health courts but believe firmly that supporters must do a better job of responding to some of the critiques of the courts (especially those coming from what I will somewhat-awkwardly characterize as the “political left.” As I will discuss below, the critiques that, I believe, have the most merit are these: that these courts may provide “false hope” to those who come before them, and that the success of the courts is overly-dependent on the personal charisma of the presiding judge. I believe that our “culture of blame” still infects the entire criminal justice process, and that it continues to demonize persons with mental illness for their status. Until this is remediated, there can be no assurances that mental health courts -- or any other such potentially-ameliorative alternative – will be ultimately “successful” (however we choose to define that term).Much of the recent debate on mental health courts has focused either on empirical studies of recidivism or on theorization. All of this discussion, while important and helpful, bypasses the critical issue that must be at the heart of the ultimate inquiry here: do such courts provide additional dignity to the criminal justice process or do they detract from the measure of dignity provided? Until we re-focus our sights on this issue, much of the discourse on this topic remains wholly irrelevant.My paper proceeds in this manner. In Part I, I discuss the underpinnings of therapeutic jurisprudence. In Part II, I briefly discuss some of the universal factors that contaminate mental disability law in all nations. In Part III, I look at the new Convention and its general implications for the future of mental disability law, with a special focus on the importance of dignity considerations in a Convention context. In Part IV, I first consider the role of blame in the criminal justice system, and then briefly outline the history of the development of mental health courts and consider some of the more serious criticisms of those courts. I conclude by offering some suggestions as to how therapeutic jurisprudence can best inform a MHC model that can be counted on to enforce international human rights and promote dignity.
This article advances a 5-stage developmental view of evidentiary law's approach to the admissibility of behavioral science information in the criminal courts. The 1st, most primitive, developmental stage—often evident in cases involving testimony based on traditional psychiatric diagnoses—focuses on the credentials of the expert. The 2nd stage looks at whether other experts share the theory or methodology of the proffered expert (a stance encapsulated in
Frye v. United States' general acceptance test). The 3rd stage of evidentiary development is more interested in the validity of the theory or methodology than in who, or how many, endorse it (a position reflected in
Daubert ). The 4th stage is concerned with the extent to which the behavioral science information adds to the validity of the legal decision to be made (a stance related to, but more demanding than, Rule 702's helpfulness standard). The final (highest developmental?) stage recognizes that, when scientific proof of validity is unobtainable, there are still normative reasons for allowing consensus-based testimony which gives criminal defendants a voice in the process. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Combining the principles of therapeutic jurisprudence, preventive law, and creative problem solving reveals an overuse by legal professionals of a "judging" problem-solving style that emphasizes the problem-solving tools of order, power, and normative expectation. It neglects—sometimes even suppresses—human emotion and interpersonal relationship, which are also important tools for solving problems. In contrast, psychologists often use an "accommodation" style of problem solving that emphasizes emotion and human connection. Legal professionals could be more effective and contribute importantly to community discourse were they to incorporate the accommodation style more frequently in legal problem solving. Doing so poses some threat to formal equality and due process, but therapeutic jurisprudence and preventive law scholarship offer promising examples for reconciling the accommodation style with traditional liberal values. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
This article discusses the cultural challenge posed by the provision of legal assistance to victims of domestic violence from among cultural minority groups. Due to the special nature of these groups, this kind of legal assistance must take regard of the particular cultural world of each victim, of her 'otherness', and of her special needs that require creative solutions. The article describes the dilemmas faced by lawyers who assist victims of domestic violence, which are greatly amplified when the latter come from cultural minority groups. Against this complex background, the aim of the article is to structure an innovative effective model of 'culture-sensitive' cause lawyering, based in part on principles drawn from models prevalent in the therapeutic field. This proposed model is accompanied by examples illustrating the need to place emphasis - already in the framework of theoretical and clinical legal education - on the development of skills and competencies borrowed in part from the therapeutic professions. The exposure of future lawyers to this 'other' conception of lawyering and the discovery of the other inside us, already in the early stages of legal education, has the potential to transform the law into a more humane and accessible social tool for the client. This approach accords with the perception of the law as an agent of therapeutic value to its audiences - a view which draws upon Therapeutic Jurisprudence and which runs like a thread throughout the article.
This Article responds to Professor Mae C. Quinn's critique of the author's piece, Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Rehabilitative Role of the Criminal Defense Lawyer, published in a 2005 symposium issue of the St. Thomas Law Review. This Reply Article suggests that Professor Quinn has badly misread or distorted the author's St. Thomas article. This Article takes serious issue with her characterization of the author's work, contends that the author and Professor Quinn are closer on many issues than her critique suggests, and points out areas of agreement and disagreement. Therapeutic Jurisprudence can be incorporated into the role of the criminal defense lawyer and, as a simple "add-on," it can be transformative of criminal law practice.
An examination of comparative mental disability law reveals that there are at least five dominant, universal, core factors that must be considered carefully in any evaluation of the key question of whether international human rights standards have been violated. Each of these five factors is a reflection of the shame that the worldwide state of mental disability law brings to all of us who work in this field. Each is tainted by the pervasive corruption of sanism that permeates all of mental disability law. Each reflects a blinding pretextuality that contaminates legal practice in this area. These are the factors that I identify: - Core factor #1: Lack of comprehensive legislation to govern the commitment and treatment of persons with mental disabilities, and failure to adhere to legislative mandates - Core factor #2: Lack of independent counsel and lack of consistent judicial review mechanisms made available to persons facing commitment and those institutionalized - Core factor # 3: A failure to provide humane care to institutionalized persons - Core factor #4: Lack of coherent and integrated community programs as an alternative to institutional care - Core factor # 5: Failure to provide humane services to forensic patients In this paper, I discuss each of these universal factors, and offer examples from many regions of the world (not primarily from caselaw nor from sophisticated jurisprudential analyses but mostly from reports done by advocacy agencies and non-governmental organizations). Although the picture I paint is bleak, there are some rays of optimism: involvement (albeit tardily) of global human rights groups such as Amnesty International, heroic work by mental disability law-specific groups such as Mental Disability Rights International and the Mental Disability Advocacy Center, the greater readiness of international human rights courts and commissions to consider the substantive claims in institutional condition cases, and the publication of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
For many years, institutional psychiatry was a major tool in the suppression of political dissent. Moreover, it appears painfully clear that, while the worst excesses of the past have mostly disappeared, the problem is not limited to the pages of history. What is more, the revelations of the worst of these abuses (and the concomitant rectification of many of them) may, paradoxically, have created the false illusion that all the major problems attendant to questions of institutional treatment and conditions in these nations have been solved. This is decidedly not so.
Remarkably, the issue of the human rights of persons with mental disabilities had been ignored for decades by the international agencies vested with the protection of human rights on a global scale. Within the legal literature, it appears that the first time disability rights were conceptualized as a human rights issue was as recently as 1993 when, in a groundbreaking article, Eric Rosenthal and Leonard Rubenstein first applied international human rights principles to the institutionalization of people with mental disabilities.
For people with mental disabilities, in particular, the development of human rights protections may be even more significant than for people with other disabilities. Like people with other disabilities, people with mental disabilities face degradation, stigmatization, and discrimination throughout the world today. But unlike people with other disabilities, many people with mental disabilities are routinely confined, against their will, in institutions, and deprived of their freedom, dignity, and basic human rights. People with mental disabilities who are fortunate enough to live outside of institutions often remain imprisoned by the social isolation they experience, often from their own families. They are not included in educational programs, and they face attitudinal barriers to employment because they have not received the education and training needed to obtain employment or because of discrimination based on unsubstantiated fears and prejudice. Only recently have disability discrimination laws and policies in the United States and elsewhere focused on changing such attitudes and promoting the integration of people with disabilities into our schools, neighborhoods, and workplaces.
The question remains, however: to what extent has institutional, state-sponsored psychiatry been used as a tool of political suppression, and what are the implications of this pattern and practice? After an Introductory section (Part I), I discuss, in Part II, the first revelations of the dehumanization inflicted on persons with mental disabilities, primarily (but not exclusively) in Soviet Bloc nations. In Part III, I discuss developments after these revelations were publicized. In Part IV, I weigh the extent to which the post-revelation reforms have been effective and meaningful. In Part V, I explain the meanings of sanism and pretextuality, and discuss how they relate to the topic at hand. Then, in Part VI, I raise questions that have not yet been answered, and that, I believe, should help set the research agendas of those thinking about these important issues.
For the past three decades, scholars have carefully considered the scope of the right of involuntarily committed psychiatric patients to refuse the administration of medication from a rich array of perspectives, including, but not limited to, clinical perspectives, civil libertarian perspectives, philosophical perspectives, and political perspectives. Yet, virtually all of this - remarkably - passes over what I believe is the single most important issue in real life. This issue is the most relevant to the actual (as opposed to paper) existence of the right and the actual (as opposed to paper) implementation of that right: the availability and adequacy of counsel to represent patients seeking to assert this right to refuse. In spite of the extensive literature and case law that has developed in this area of the law, the topic remains egregiously under-discussed and under-litigated. Simply put, if active, trained counsel is not provided for patients seeking to interpose this right, then the right becomes nothing more than a paper document: useless and meaningless (and perhaps, counterproductive) in the real world, and yet another in a series of shameful pretexts that dominate this area of the law. In this paper, I discuss: (1) the generally mediocre job done by lawyers in the involuntary civil commitment process; (2) the equally mediocre job done in the right to refuse treatment process, especially where both courts and legislatures have failed to articulate a universal right to counsel in right to refuse cases;(3) the reasons why counsel is so critical in such cases; (4) the significance of what I call sanism and what I call pretextuality, and the application of a therapeutic jurisprudence mode of analysis to the topic in trying to understand all of this, and (5) these recommendations for the future: - Each state should adopt procedures that guarantee the appointment of effective, trained counsel to represent patients at both involuntary civil commitment hearings and at right to refuse treatment hearings. - State attorneys general and county counsels should insist that lawyers representing hospitals in such cases be equally effective and trained. - Judicial educational agencies such as the National Judicial College should offer regular courses in all aspects of the right to refuse treatment for state court judges. - All participants in the system should acknowledge the ways that sanism and pretextuality corrupt the judicial process (especially this aspect of the judicial process), confront that corruption, and take seriously the significance of that corruption. - A therapeutic jurisprudence lens should regularly be applied to this entire area of the law, and courts should begin to consider the issues discussed here through a therapeutic jurisprudence filter. - Scholars should seriously consider adding this issue to their research agendas.
There is a robust clinical literature on how issues of race and gender may influence all aspects of the clinical setting: the relationship between student and client, the relationship between student and student, the relationship between student and clinical supervisor, the attitude of the fact-finder toward the clinical client. But there has been virtually no attention paid to the role of sanism in the clinical setting. Sanism is an irrational prejudice of the same quality and character as other irrational prejudices that cause and are reflected in prevailing social attitudes of racism, sexism, homophobia and ethnic bigotry. It permeates all aspects of mental disability law, and affects all participants in the mental disability law system: fact finders, counsel, expert and lay witnesses. Its corrosive effects have warped mental disability law jurisprudence in involuntary civil commitment law, in institutional law, in tort law, and in all aspects of the criminal trial process. Sanist myths exert especially great power over lawyers who represent persons with mental disabilities. The use of stereotypes, typification, and deindividualization inevitably means that sanist lawyers will trivialize both their clients' problems and the importance of any eventual solution to these problems. Sanist lawyers implicitly and explicitly question their clients' competence and credibility, a move that significantly impairs their advocacy efforts. These phenomena are especially troubling in the clinical setting, in which students are exposed for the first time to the skills that go to the heart of the lawyering process: interviewing, investigating, counseling and negotiating. All of these are difficult for us (and our students) to learn, but this difficulty is significantly increased when the client is a person with mental disability (or one so perceived). The difficulties can be further exacerbated when the clinical teacher - either overtly or covertly - expresses sanist thoughts or reifies sanist myths. And sanism problems continue at every "critical moment" of the clinical experience: the initial interview, case preparation, case conferences, planning litigation (or negotiation) strategy, trial preparation, trial and appeal. This paper will explore (1) the meaning of sanism, (2) the general impact of sanism on the representation of persons with mental disabilities, (3) the special problems faced when sanism infects the clinical teaching process, and (4) some tentative solutions to this dilemma.
Objectives. There has been an explosion of interest in therapeutic jurisprudence as both a filter and lens for viewing the extent to which the legal system serves therapeutic or anti‐therapeutic consequences. However, little attention has been paid to the impact of therapeutic jurisprudence on questions of international human rights law and the role of forensic psychologists. The paper aims to provide an intersection between human rights, therapeutic jurisprudence, and forensic psychology.
Method. Human rights are based on legal, social, and moral rules. Human rights literature generally considers legal rights but such policy statements do not provide principles to guide forensic psychologists in addressing moral or social rights. Therefore, a framework to guide forensic psychologists is required.
Conclusion. As duty‐bearers, forensic psychologists need to address the core values of freedom and well‐being in rights holders (in this instance, prisoners and detainees with a mental illness). The paper proposes that human rights principles can add to the normative base of a therapeutic jurisprudence framework, and in‐turn, therapeutic jurisprudence can assist forensic psychologists to actively address human rights.
Over the past three decades, the U.S. judiciary has grown increasingly less receptive to claims by convicted felons as to the conditions of their confinement while in prison. Although courts have not articulated a return to the "hands off" policy of the 1950s, it is clear that it has become significantly more difficult for prisoners to prevail in constitutional correctional litigation. The passage and aggressive implementation of the Prison Litigation Reform Act has been a powerful disincentive to such litigation in many areas of prisoners' rights law. From the perspective of the prisoner, the legal landscape is more hopeful in matters that relate to mental health care and treatment. Here, in spite of a general trend toward more stringent applications of standards of proof and a reluctance to order sweeping, intrusive remedies, some courts have aggressively protected prisoners' rights to be free from "deliberate indifference" to serious medical needs, and to be free from excessive force on the part of prison officials. A mostly hidden undercurrent in some prisoners' rights litigation has been the effort on the part of some plaintiffs' lawyers to look to international human rights doctrines as a potential source of rights, an effort that has met with some modest success. It receives support by the inclination of other courts to turn to international human rights conventions-even in nations where such conventions have not been ratified-as a kind of "best practice" in the area. The recent publication and subsequent ratification (though not, as of yet, by the United States) of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) may add new support to those using international human rights documents as a basis for litigating prisoners' rights claims. To the best of our knowledge, there has, as of yet, been no scholarly literature on the question of the implications of the CRPD on the state of prisoners' rights law in a U.S. domestic context. In this article, we raise this question, and offer some tentative conclusions.
The development of feminist jurisprudence in recent years has made a rich and fruitful contribution to legal theory. Few areas of domestic law have avoided the scrutiny of feminist writers, who have exposed the gender bias of apparently neutral systems of rules. A central feature of many western theories about law is that the law is an autonomous entity, distinct from the society it regulates. A legal system is regarded as different from a political or economic system, for example, because it operates on the basis of abstract rationality, and is thus universally applicable and capable of achieving neutrality and objectivity. These attributes are held to give the law its special authority. More radical theories have challenged this abstract rationalism, arguing that legal analysis cannot be separated from the political, economic, historical and cultural context in which people live. Some theorists argue that the law functions as a system of beliefs that make social, political and economic inequalities appear natural. Feminist jurisprudence builds on certain aspects of this critical strain in legal thought. It is much more focused and concrete, however, and derives its theoretical force from immediate experience of the role of the legal system in creating and perpetuating the unequal position of women.
Prisons in modern societies are complex bureaucracies that are subject to regulation through a range of external monitoring and internal inspection mechanisms. Internal inspections are closely connected to the bureaucracies that manage individual prison systems. External monitoring is conducted by international, regional, and national organizations. In theory, international monitoring by organs of the United Nations has a worldwide reach, but its impact in a particular country depends on whether the country has ratified the relevant international instrument and agreed to being monitored. Regional monitoring is particularly prominent in Europe. It is less prominent in other regions. The form that national external monitoring adopts varies greatly between countries. It may be done by a specially created inspectorate, human rights committee, or ombudsman. Local monitoring committees for individual prisons, complaints procedures, and court actions may all serve regulatory functions. These diverse bodies are most effective as monitoring organizations when they are independent, apply clear standards, and have political support. Their efficacy may be increased by international support and the acceptance at the national level of the salience of human rights standards for prison conditions.
–—————————————————————– Human Rights Compliance and the Role of External Prison Oversight Ivan Zinger1 Department of Law, Carleton University Introduction to the special issue Correctional authorities around the world are under increasing legislative and societal pressure to introduce more austere (‘‘no-frills’’) prison regimes, impose new restrictions on prisoners, and tighten security requirements. Even traditionally liberal and open European regimes have taken measures in recent years to introduce a more Spartan and, in some instances, more punitive prison regime in response to the prevailing law-and-order agenda. The war on terrorism has also provided ‘‘legitimacy’’ for some countries to further oppress their prisoner populations – not only convicted and alleged terrorists have been affected but, in some instances, the entire prison population. In this societal context, those responsible for administering prisons are now faced with an ever more difficult task in ensuring legal standards of humane detention. Guaranteeing the human rights of prisoners will continue to be an important challenge for many countries, including advanced democracies such as Canada. The best argument for observing human rights standards is not merely that they are required by international or domestic law but that they actually work better than any known alternative – for offenders, for correctional staff, and for society at large. Compliance with human rights obligations increases, though it does not guarantee, the odds of releasing a more responsible citizen. In essence, a prison environment respectful of human rights is conducive to positive change, whereas an environment of abuse, disrespect, and discrimination has the opposite effect: Treating prisoners with humanity actually enhances public safety. Moreover, through respecting the human rights of prisoners, society conveys a strong message that everyone, regardless of their circumstance, race, social status, gender, religion, and so on, is to be treated with inherent respect and dignity. C223 2006 CJCCJ/RCCJP The best approach to ensure that the rule of law is upheld in corrections is to conceptualize the business of corrections as a human rights business. The same can also be said of the business of policing and the business of national security. When government has exceptional authority over its citizens, the potential for abuse of powers is great, and the protections of fundamental rights must be a core preoccupation of those empowered and trusted with those exceptional powers. In a correctional context, every aspect of the prisoner’s life is heavily regulated by correctional authorities. Correctional authorities make thousands of decisions every day that affect prisoners’ fundamental rights (e.g., use of force, segregation, searches, transfers, visiting). Routine daily activities, such as whether prisoners can contact family and friends, whether and how they can practice their religion or access medical services, and when they can eat and sleep, are all regulated by correctional authorities. Without recognition that the business of corrections is all about promoting and monitoring respect for human rights, preventing human rights violations, and detecting and remedying human rights violations, systemic abuses of power are inevitable. Perhaps the most provocative account of the challenges faced by correctional authorities in Canada and abroad in fully meeting their respective human rights obligations is that offered by Mary Campbell (1997), who has contributed to this special issue a commentary on whether prisoners’ sentences should be altered in cases of gross violations of human rights by correctional authorities. This senior federal public servant was instrumental in developing one of the world’s best correctional legislative frameworks – Canada’s 1992 Corrections and Conditional Release Act. She writes that a ‘‘natural drift’’ toward ‘‘callousness at best and brutality at worst’’ (1997, 327) exists in corrections and that ‘‘a lack of genuine commitment to a culture of human rights behind bars can swiftly return prison culture to the ‘dark ages’ where expediency rules rather than the law’’ (323). She then argues that a strong human rights legislative framework paired with effective external monitoring mechanisms serves as a crucial counter-weight against that ‘‘natural drift.’’ The ‘‘natural drift’’ can have a still more brutal, and even deadly, impact on citizens living where democracy has yet to be realized. Denis Langlois’s well-informed description of some prison regimes in South America in this special issue tells a disturbing tale of abuse and torture and how...
This article traces changes in the nature of legal scholarship and illustrates how therapeutic jurisprudence reflects changing conceptions of the law and legal scholarship. It argues that therapeutic jurisprudence may be regarded as a mental health law counterpart to „New Public Law,” and shows that questions asked by therapeutic jurisprudence scholars parallel closely those asked by public law scholars.
This foreword to a law review symposium on victim's rights describes the approach of therapeutic jurisprudence and suggests how its approach can be used to improve the plight of the victim in the criminal justice process.
Using the accounts of Gewirth and Griffin as examples, the article criticises accounts of human rights as those are understood in human rights practices, which regard them as rights all human beings have in virtue of their humanity. Instead it suggests that (with Rawls) human rights set the limits to the sovereignty of the state, but criticises Rawls conflation of sovereignty with legitimate authority. The resulting conception takes human rights, like other rights, to be contingent on social conditions, and in particular on the nature of the international system.
Almost all the literature about the influence of sanism and pretextuality on the development of mental disability law has dealt with questions of institutionalization and the rights of persons who are subject to commitment to in-patient psychiatric hospitals. Problems of mental disability, however, are not solely institutional problems. A significant percentage of the public - the vast majority of whom will never be in peril of institutionalization - exhibit some sort of serious mental illness during their lifetime. A much larger percentage exhibits some sign of mental disability or mental disorder. And this population - like the rest of the population - frequently has problems that require resolution by a lawyer and the legal system, among them, contract problems, property problems, domestic relations problems, and trusts and estates problems. In this paper, I consider why there has been so little literature dealing with these issues, and call on scholars to turn their attention to the way that sanism and pretextuality infect this aspect of mental disability law as well.
Brookbanks, supra note 22; Gregory Baker, Do You Hear the Knocking at the Door? A "Therapeutic" Approach to Enriching Clinical Legal Education Comes Calling
- B C L Rev
B.C. L. REV. 597, 599 (2007); Brookbanks, supra note 22; Gregory Baker, Do You Hear the
Knocking at the Door? A "Therapeutic" Approach to Enriching Clinical Legal Education Comes
Calling, 28 WHITTIER L. REV. 379, 385 (2006).
Two Decades, supra note 10, at 19. 30
- See
- Wexler
29 See Wexler, Two Decades, supra note 10, at 19. 30 See BRUCE J. WINICK, CIVIL COMMITMENT: A THERAPEUTIC JURISPRUDENCE MODEL 161 (2005).
See also, on the rela-tionship between therapeutic jurisprudence and juvenile commitment hearings, Amend-ment to the Rules of Juvenile Procedure
- Carol L Zeiner
- B C J L Soc
- Just
Carol L. Zeiner, Marching Across the Putative Black/White Race Line: A Convergence Of Narratology, History, and Theory, 33 B.C. J.L. & SOC. JUST. 249, 313 (2013), See also, on the rela-tionship between therapeutic jurisprudence and juvenile commitment hearings, Amend-ment to the Rules of Juvenile Procedure, Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.350, 804 So.2d 1206, 1211 (Fla. 2001) ( " juveniles involved in civil commitment hearings are likely to be particularly sen-sitive to issues of participation, dignity and trust " ).
Out of Darkness into Light? Introducing the
- Rosemary French Phillip
38 Rosemary Kayess & Phillip French, Out of Darkness into Light? Introducing the
On procedural justice in the context of mental disability law, see
- Michael L Perlin
- A Prescription
- Dignity
- Rethinking
- Justice
- Mental
- Law
On procedural justice in the context of mental disability law, see MICHAEL L. PERLIN, A PRESCRIPTION FOR DIGNITY: RETHINKING CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND MENTAL DISABILITY LAW 79-98 (2013).
373 (M.D. Ala.) 344 F. Supp. 387 (M.D. Ala. 1972) aff'd sub nom
- F Supp
F. Supp. 373 (M.D. Ala.) 344 F. Supp. 387 (M.D. Ala. 1972) aff'd sub nom. Wyatt v.
Jurisprudence Model for Civil Commitment, in INVOLUNTARY DETENTION AND THERAPEUTIC
- Bruce Winick
- Therapeutic
Bruce Winick, A Therapeutic Jurisprudence Model for Civil Commitment, in INVOLUNTARY
DETENTION AND THERAPEUTIC JURISPRUDENCE: INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE ON CIVIL COMMITMENT, 23, 26
(Kate Diesfeld & Ian Freckelton, eds., 2003).
34 TJ should reach out more consistently to international rights law as well. See e.g., Perlin, Guardians, supra note 9, at 1186-87; Heather Ellis Cucolo & Michael L. Perlin, Preventing Sex-Offender Recidivism through Therapeutic Jurisprudence Approaches and Specialized Community Integration
34 TJ should reach out more consistently to international rights law as well. See e.g.,
Perlin, Guardians, supra note 9, at 1186-87; Heather Ellis Cucolo & Michael L. Perlin,
Preventing Sex-Offender Recidivism through Therapeutic Jurisprudence Approaches and Specialized Community Integration, 22 TEMPLE POLITICAL & CIVIL RTS. L. REV. 1, 17 n. 80 (2012);
Therapeutic Jurisprudence: The Impact of Mental Health Courts on the Criminal Justice System, 83
- See E G Andrea
- M Odegaard
See e.g., Andrea M. Odegaard,, Therapeutic Jurisprudence: The Impact of Mental Health
Courts on the Criminal Justice System, 83 N.D. L. REV. 225 (2007);
Melville's Tribute to the Sixth Amendment
- Juan Ramirez
- D Amy
- Ronner
- Billy Voiceless
- Budd
Juan Ramirez Jr. & Amy D. Ronner, Voiceless Billy Budd: Melville's Tribute to the Sixth
Amendment, 41 CAL. WESTERN L. REV. 103, 119 (2004).
discussing New York State Ass'n for Retarded Children v. Rockefeller, 357 F
POL'Y & L. 80, 99 (1995), discussing New York State Ass'n for Retarded Children v. Rockefeller,
357 F. Supp. 752 (E.D.N.Y.,. 1973) (Willowbrook case).
Two Decades, supra note 10
- See Wexler
See Wexler, Two Decades, supra note 10, at 19.
- L Perlin
- Mental Disability
- The
- Penalty
L. PERLIN, MENTAL DISABILITY AND THE DEATH PENALTY: THE SHAME OF THE STATES 123-38 (2013).
See also, Bernard P. Perlmutter, George's Story: Voice and Transformation through the Teaching and Practice of Therapeutic Jurisprudence in a Law School Child Advocacy Clinic Ian Freckelton, Therapeutic Jurisprudence Misunderstood and Misrepresented: The Price and Risks of Influence
- Pitt L Rev
- Michael L Perlin
- The
- Prejudice
PITT. L. REV. 589, 591 (2008), quoting, in part, MICHAEL L. PERLIN, THE HIDDEN PREJUDICE: MENTAL DISABILITY ON TRIAL 301 (2000). See also, Bernard P. Perlmutter, George's Story: Voice and Transformation through the Teaching and Practice of Therapeutic Jurisprudence in a Law School
Child Advocacy Clinic, 17 ST. THOMAS L. REV. 561, 599 n. 111 (2005). Ian Freckelton, Therapeutic
Jurisprudence Misunderstood and Misrepresented: The Price and Risks of Influence, 30 T. JEFFERSON L. REV. 575, 585-86 (2008).
Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Court Responsibilities
- Muhammad Ahmad
Muhammad Ahmad Munir, Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Court Responsibilities,
accessible at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2261530 (posted May
7, 2013).
supra note 33; Ronner, supra note 33
- Ronner See
See RONNER, supra note 33; Ronner, supra note 33.
Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Mentally Disabled Persons: Hopeless Oxymoron or Path to Redemption? 1 PSYCHOL
- See Michael
- L Perlin
See Michael L. Perlin, et al., Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Mentally Disabled Persons: Hopeless Oxymoron or Path to Redemption? 1 PSYCHOL. PUB.
- L Carol
- B C J L Zeiner
- Soc
- Just
Carol L. Zeiner, Marching Across the Putative Black/White Race Line: A Convergence Of
Narratology, History, and Theory, 33 B.C. J.L. & SOC. JUST. 249, 313 (2013), See also, on the relationship between therapeutic jurisprudence and juvenile commitment hearings, Amendment to the Rules of Juvenile Procedure, Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.350, 804 So.2d 1206, 1211 (Fla.
supra note 94, at 100. 97 See generally WINICK,supra note 30; Bruce Winick Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Civil Commitment Hearing
- Perlin
96 Perlin et al., supra note 94, at 100.
97 See generally WINICK,supra note 30; Bruce Winick Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Civil
Commitment Hearing, 10 J. CONTEMP. LEG. ISS. 37 (1999).
at 59-80; see generally, Robin Munro, Judicial Psychiatry in China and its Political Abuses, 14 COLUM
- Supra Perlin
- Note
PERLIN, supra note 35, at 59-80; see generally, Robin Munro, Judicial Psychiatry in
China and its Political Abuses, 14 COLUM. J. ASIAN L. 1 (2000).
holding that the Eleventh Amendment bars federal relief in a right-to-community service case due to federalism concerns
- Halderman
Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) (holding that the Eleventh Amendment bars federal relief in a right-to-community service case due to federalism concerns).
Outpatient Commitment: Some Thoughts on Promoting a Meaningful Dialogue
- A Henry
- Dlugacz
Henry A. Dlugacz,
Outpatient Commitment: Some Thoughts on Promoting a Meaningful Dialogue, 53 N.Y.L. SCH. L.
REV. 79 (2008).