Mental Disorder and Criminal Law

Mental disorder among criminal defendants affects every stage of the criminal justice process, from investigational issues to competence to be executed. As in all other areas of mental health law, at least some people with mental disorders, are treated specially. The underlying thesis of this Articl...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Stephen J. Morse (Author)
Format: Electronic Book
Language:English
Published: 2011
In:Year: 2011
Online Access: Volltext (kostenfrei)
Check availability: HBZ Gateway

MARC

LEADER 00000cam a22000002c 4500
001 1866146130
003 DE-627
005 20250122054857.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 231018s2011 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
035 |a (DE-627)1866146130 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1866146130 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 2,1  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a Stephen J. Morse  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a Mental Disorder and Criminal Law 
264 1 |c 2011 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a Mental disorder among criminal defendants affects every stage of the criminal justice process, from investigational issues to competence to be executed. As in all other areas of mental health law, at least some people with mental disorders, are treated specially. The underlying thesis of this Article is that people with mental disorder should, as far as is practicable and consistent with justice, be treated just like everyone else. In some areas, the law is relatively sensible and just. In others, too often the opposite is true and the laws sweep too broadly. I believe, however, that special rules to deal with at least some people with mental disorder are justified because they substantially lack rational capacity. Treating people with mental disorder specially is a two-edged sword. Failing to do so when it is appropriate is unjust, but the opposite is demeaning, stigmatizing, and paternalistic. The central normative question is when special treatment is justified. This Article will focus mainly on United States Supreme Court cases to review the current state of the law, with special attention to the contexts in which preventive detention is an issue. It makes no pretense to covering every issue, to providing a complete analysis of these cases, or to comprehensive coverage of all the arguments concerning the issues raised. The Court’s cases are simply a vehicle for organizing the overview. The goal is to explore what I consider the most just approach in each area. In some cases, my preferences are foreclosed by constitutional constraints; in others, the preferred approach could be achieved by statute or by state supreme court decisions 
856 4 0 |u https://core.ac.uk/download/231036111.pdf  |x Verlag  |z kostenfrei  |3 Volltext 
935 |a mkri 
951 |a BO 
ELC |a 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 4391826895 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1866146130 
LOK |0 005 20231018043709 
LOK |0 008 231018||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 035   |a (DE-2619)CORE38319182 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-2619  |c DE-627  |d DE-2619 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-2619 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 935   |a core 
OAS |a 1 
ORI |a SA-MARC-krimdoka001.raw