Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Access to justice (1)
- Asylum (1)
- Civil commitment proceedings (1)
- Civil liberties (1)
- Competency (1)
-
- Courts (1)
- Daubert (1)
- Demeanor (1)
- Deterrence (1)
- Domestic violence (1)
- Dual relationships (1)
- Federal Rule of Evidence 702 (1)
- Federal Rule of Evidence 706 (1)
- Forensic testimony (1)
- Immigration (1)
- Mass detention (1)
- Mental health (1)
- Mental illness (1)
- Neutrality (1)
- Protection order (1)
- Psychiatry (1)
- Refugee (1)
- Self-help program (1)
- Testimony (1)
- Unrepresented litigant (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Danger Zone: How The Dangerousness Standard In Civil Commitment Proceedings Harms People With Serious Mental Illness, Sara Gordon
Scholarly Works
Almost every American state allows civil commitment upon a finding that a person, as a result of mental illness, is gravely disabled and unable to meet their basic needs for food and shelter. Yet in spite of these statutes, most psychiatrists and courts will not commit an individual until they are found to pose a danger to themselves or others. All people have certain rights to be free from unwanted medical treatment, but for people with serious mental illness, those civil liberties are an abstraction, safeguarded for them by a system that is not otherwise ensuring access to shelter and …
Limiting Deterrence: Judicial Resistance To Detention Of Asylum-Seekers In Israel And The United States, Michael Kagan
Limiting Deterrence: Judicial Resistance To Detention Of Asylum-Seekers In Israel And The United States, Michael Kagan
Scholarly Works
Governments have advanced the argument that asylum-seekers may be detained in order to deter other would-be asylum-seekers from coming. But in recent litigation in the United States and Israel, this justification for mass detention met with significant resistance from courts. This Essay looks at the way the American and Israeli courts dealt with the proposed deterrence rationale for asylum-seeker detention. It suggests that general deterrence raises three sequential questions:
1. Is deterrence ever legitimate as a stand alone justification for depriving people of liberty?
2. If deterrence is sometimes legitimate, is it valid as a general matter in migration control, …
Domestic Violence And The Politics Of Self-Help, Elizabeth L. Macdowell
Domestic Violence And The Politics Of Self-Help, Elizabeth L. Macdowell
Scholarly Works
Self-help programs are conceptualized as alternatives to attorney representation that can help both courts and unrepresented litigants. The rhetoric of self-help also typically includes empowering unrepresented individuals to help themselves. But how do self-help programs respond to litigants’ efforts at self-advocacy? This Article reports findings from a study of courthouse self-help programs assisting unrepresented litigants applying for protection orders. The central finding is that self-help staff members were not neutral in the provision of services despite a professed ethic of neutrality. Using the sociological concept of demeanor, this Article shows that staff members rewarded protection order applicants who conformed to …
Crossing The Line: Daubert, Dual Roles, And The Admissibility Of Forensic Mental Health Testimony, Sara Gordon
Crossing The Line: Daubert, Dual Roles, And The Admissibility Of Forensic Mental Health Testimony, Sara Gordon
Scholarly Works
Psychiatrists and other mental health professionals often testify as forensic experts in civil commitment and criminal competency proceedings. When an individual clinician assumes both a treatment and a forensic role in the context of a single case, however, that clinician forms a dual relationship with the patient—a practice that creates a conflict of interest and violates professional ethical guidelines. The court, the parties, and the patient are all affected by this conflict and the biased testimony that may result from dual relationships. When providing forensic testimony, the mental health professional’s primary duty is to the court, not to the patient, …