Comparative Legal Research on Involuntary Civil Commitment of Mentally Ill Person in Korea and the U.S.

Author(s):  
Yoo Eun Jung ◽  
1981 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 403-421 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert D. Miller ◽  
Paul B. Fiddleman

Legal activists have argued for adversary counsel to represent patients in civil commitment hearings, and many courts and legislatures have responded by requiring effective representation for patients. The authors argue that a truly adversarial system requires full-time attorneys representing both sides (commitment and release) with clear-cut roles for each attorney, and that such systems are generally not in use at this time.


1987 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 433-454 ◽  
Author(s):  
Virginia Aldigé Hiday ◽  
Lynn Newhart Smith

This study presents data from a large statewide sample of civil commitment respondents, which challenge beliefs about the deleterious effects of the dangerousness standard on the mentally ill and on mental hospitals. Using objective behavioral criteria, this study finds that the mentally ill brought into the civil commitment process and those committed by the courts to involuntary hospitalization are not limited to the violent, much less the violent to others. Their dangerousness is often toward self and is nonviolent. Many even have no allegations of dangerous behavior. Furthermore, most who are violent do not reach high levels of violence. Reasons for continuation of the beliefs that the dangerousness standard causes the abandonment of the nondangerous mentally ill and causes the filling of mental hospitals with the violent are discussed.


JAMA ◽  
1980 ◽  
Vol 243 (18) ◽  
pp. 1807b-1807
Author(s):  
G. M. Solan

2019 ◽  
Vol 56 (1) ◽  
pp. 46-88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria M. Lewis ◽  
Suzanne E. Eckes

Purpose: In 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a highly publicized case brought by a transgender student, G.G., who was denied access to the bathroom that corresponds with his gender identity. Ultimately, the Court never heard this case, but the documents submitted to the Court remain a part of the historical record, worthy of examination beyond their legal value. In this study, we analyze the first person accounts presented in the “friend of the court” (amicus) briefs to better understand the human impact of policies and practices related to transgender student inclusion. Method: This research utilizes legal research methods to bound the study design. We draw from legal storytelling, which originates in law, and narrative inquiry, which can be found in educational research. In doing so, we provide a synthesis of all amicus briefs submitted in the G.G. case that include personal, firsthand accounts, stories, and experiences. Findings: Overall, the personal stories highlight the implications of inclusive and noninclusive policies and practices. Where noninclusive policies were in place, individuals shared experiences of bullying, academic harm, medical concerns, and inconsistencies in implementation. On the other hand, inclusive policies were associated with confidence building and academic engagement, and a benefit to all students. Stories also reveal that common fears such as safety or privacy did not materialize in the experiences of individuals represented in the briefs. Implications: Informed by these stories, we present implications for research, policy, and practice. Stories reveal the importance of leadership, communication, and professional development.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document