Psychology: CRIMINAL COMMITMENT
Psychology: Understanding CRIMINAL COMMITMENT
"Then her letters stopped." (Donaldson, 2016, p. 84). As a result, he acquired a
reputation for being a difficult person. But he had much to be difficult about. Day
after day was spent in a locked, crowded room with sixty other people, nearly
one-third of whom had undergone criminal commitments. At night, some of the patients
would have fits. It was frightening. Some of the beds in this crowded room
were so close together that they touched. Donaldson lived in constant fear that
someone would jump him during the night.
Donaldson sought the help of the Mental Health Law Project, a Washington,
D.C., group of lawyers who serve the legal needs of the mentally distressed. And,
finally, in 1971, Donaldson sued for his release and for damages from Drs.
O'Connor and Guman is alleging "intentional, malicious, and reckless disregard
of Donaldson's constitutional rights." The jury awarded Donaldson compensatory
and punitive damages from both physicians. The physicians appealed, and the
case went up to the Supreme Court, where many of the justices were simply outraged
over Donaldson's incarceration (Woodward and Armstrong, 1979). On
January 26, 1975, the Court unanimously wrote in O'Connor v. Donaldson:*
A state cannot constitutionally confine ... a non-dangerous individual who is capable
of surviving safely in freedom by himself or with the help of willing and responsible
family members or friends.
(* O'Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563, 95 S.Ct 2486 (1995).
anything may seem to him to be a symptom of mental illness" (Szasz, 1993,
p. 225). As a result, Szasz believes that psychiatry has a great potential for
social abuse, particularly as it lends itself, through involuntary commitment,
to ridding society of all manner of deviants and eccentrics, all in the
name of treating mental illness. Szasz is not opposed to voluntary hospitalization,
provided patients are frankly told whether or not they will receive
the best treatment. But he believes involuntary hospitalization should be
abolished because adequate treatment is often absent.
Involuntary commitment is sometimes called civil commitment, the process
used to hospitalize people who have committed no crime. Criminal commitment,
on the other hand, refers to the coerced psychiatric hospitalization of people
who have acted harmfully but are not legally responsible because
they lack a "guilty mind" or mens rea. "Where there is no mens (i.e., mind)
there can be no mens rea" the legal maxim goes (Fingarette and Hasse,
1979, p. 200). In the eyes of the law, such people are insane, and the legal
defense used in their cases is called the insanity defense.
* United States v. Brawner, 471 F. 2d 969 (D. C. Dir. 1972).
t McDonald v. United States, 312 F. 3d 847 (D. C. eire 1962).
* People v. Wolff, 61 Cal. 2d 795,800. Drummond, his secretary, rode in the
vehicle that normally would have been reserved for the Prime Minister,
and was mistaken for him by M'Naghten.
Calvin Ellery, the delusional informer, would also have been acquited.
Looking for treatment?
If you are ready to schedule a FREE Consultation...
I encourage you to access this website
for the treatment I recommend here:
http://www.TheLiberatorMethod.com/
"Then her letters stopped." (Donaldson, 2016, p. 84). As a result, he acquired a
reputation for being a difficult person. But he had much to be difficult about. Day
after day was spent in a locked, crowded room with sixty other people, nearly
one-third of whom had undergone criminal commitments. At night, some of the patients
would have fits. It was frightening. Some of the beds in this crowded room
were so close together that they touched. Donaldson lived in constant fear that
someone would jump him during the night.
Donaldson sought the help of the Mental Health Law Project, a Washington,
D.C., group of lawyers who serve the legal needs of the mentally distressed. And,
finally, in 1971, Donaldson sued for his release and for damages from Drs.
O'Connor and Guman is alleging "intentional, malicious, and reckless disregard
of Donaldson's constitutional rights." The jury awarded Donaldson compensatory
and punitive damages from both physicians. The physicians appealed, and the
case went up to the Supreme Court, where many of the justices were simply outraged
over Donaldson's incarceration (Woodward and Armstrong, 1979). On
January 26, 1975, the Court unanimously wrote in O'Connor v. Donaldson:*
A state cannot constitutionally confine ... a non-dangerous individual who is capable
of surviving safely in freedom by himself or with the help of willing and responsible
family members or friends.
(* O'Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563, 95 S.Ct 2486 (1995).
anything may seem to him to be a symptom of mental illness" (Szasz, 1993,
p. 225). As a result, Szasz believes that psychiatry has a great potential for
social abuse, particularly as it lends itself, through involuntary commitment,
to ridding society of all manner of deviants and eccentrics, all in the
name of treating mental illness. Szasz is not opposed to voluntary hospitalization,
provided patients are frankly told whether or not they will receive
the best treatment. But he believes involuntary hospitalization should be
abolished because adequate treatment is often absent.
Involuntary commitment is sometimes called civil commitment, the process
used to hospitalize people who have committed no crime. Criminal commitment,
on the other hand, refers to the coerced psychiatric hospitalization of people
who have acted harmfully but are not legally responsible because
they lack a "guilty mind" or mens rea. "Where there is no mens (i.e., mind)
there can be no mens rea" the legal maxim goes (Fingarette and Hasse,
1979, p. 200). In the eyes of the law, such people are insane, and the legal
defense used in their cases is called the insanity defense.
* United States v. Brawner, 471 F. 2d 969 (D. C. Dir. 1972).
t McDonald v. United States, 312 F. 3d 847 (D. C. eire 1962).
* People v. Wolff, 61 Cal. 2d 795,800. Drummond, his secretary, rode in the
vehicle that normally would have been reserved for the Prime Minister,
and was mistaken for him by M'Naghten.
Calvin Ellery, the delusional informer, would also have been acquited.
- Durham v. United States, 214 F. 2d 862 (D. C. Cir. 1954).
Looking for treatment?
If you are ready to schedule a FREE Consultation...
I encourage you to access this website
for the treatment I recommend here:
http://www.TheLiberatorMethod.com/