5 ms·

How is involuntary commitment legal under the constitution? Mental "patients" (prisoners) are deprived of due process, trial by jury, and are subject to cruel

How is involuntary commitment legal under the constitution? Mental "patients" (prisoners) are deprived of due process, trial by jury, and are subject to cruel and unusual punishment (forced drugging, solitary confinement) and indefinite imprisonment. This in itself is psychologically damaging and further exacerbates the issue. If a person hurts someone, they should stand trial but until then they should be allowed their inalienable rights.

maxerickson 10y ago
You are defining due process differently than the Supreme Court.
rtkwe 10y ago
The constitution doesn't guarantee/require a trial by jury outside of criminal cases. Since involuntary commitment is not a criminal case it only requires due process which is simply a normalized legal framework. For commitment there's hearings with judges and legal council for the patient which meets the requirements the Supreme Court has laid out.
- wu-ikkyu 10y ago
  After rereading the bill of rights I see your point, though it still seems like a very nuanced loophole that can and has been used to supralegally imprison and abuse social deviants (i.e. political dissidents in the USSR, marijuana smokers in the US). 1. create a new classification of crime outside of normal criminal law (i.e. thought crime, racial impurity, religious heresy) 2. Streamline subjugation of undesireables by skirting the bureaucratic barriers of criminal law system 3. Profit
  - rtkwe 10y ago
    Well yeah, the constitution is far from airtight and largely relies on the courts to fairly uphold the spirit of many of the clauses rather than a strict word by word meaning. And it's a fair way to write the founding document of a nation because it's impossible to codify every little case in a way that's not fatally brittle within 50 years. (PS: Imprisoning people for smoking pot isn't a good example here because it goes through the normal criminal system. And examples from outside the US are practically useless because so many rights and powers differ between the US and even other close govenments like the UK.)
    - wu-ikkyu 10y ago
      >PS: Imprisoning people for smoking pot isn't a good example here because it goes through the normal criminal system. In the 60's and 70's in the US it was not uncommon for parents to have their children committed to asylums because they were high on marijuana (it was called "reefer madness" after all). And even today recreational use of marijuana is considered a mental illness according the the DSM-5.

maxerickson 10y ago

You are defining due process differently than the Supreme Court.

rtkwe 10y ago

The constitution doesn't guarantee/require a trial by jury outside of criminal cases. Since involuntary commitment is not a criminal case it only requires due process which is simply a normalized legal framework. For commitment there's hearings with judges and legal council for the patient which meets the requirements the Supreme Court has laid out.

wu-ikkyu 10y ago
After rereading the bill of rights I see your point, though it still seems like a very nuanced loophole that can and has been used to supralegally imprison and abuse social deviants (i.e. political dissidents in the USSR, marijuana smokers in the US). 1. create a new classification of crime outside of normal criminal law (i.e. thought crime, racial impurity, religious heresy) 2. Streamline subjugation of undesireables by skirting the bureaucratic barriers of criminal law system 3. Profit
- rtkwe 10y ago
  Well yeah, the constitution is far from airtight and largely relies on the courts to fairly uphold the spirit of many of the clauses rather than a strict word by word meaning. And it's a fair way to write the founding document of a nation because it's impossible to codify every little case in a way that's not fatally brittle within 50 years. (PS: Imprisoning people for smoking pot isn't a good example here because it goes through the normal criminal system. And examples from outside the US are practically useless because so many rights and powers differ between the US and even other close govenments like the UK.)
  - wu-ikkyu 10y ago
    >PS: Imprisoning people for smoking pot isn't a good example here because it goes through the normal criminal system. In the 60's and 70's in the US it was not uncommon for parents to have their children committed to asylums because they were high on marijuana (it was called "reefer madness" after all). And even today recreational use of marijuana is considered a mental illness according the the DSM-5.