In most jurisdictions, the involuntary obligation is applied to individuals who are suspected of suffering from a mental illness that impairs their ability to reason to such an extent that law, state or court officials determine that decisions are made for the person within a legal framework. This is a procedure that differs from being found incompetent and limits involuntary treatment to people who meet the legal criteria to pose a danger to themselves or others. Involuntary attachment is a legal procedure whereby a person classified by a qualified officer as a symptom of a serious mental disorder is detained in a psychiatric hospital (hospitalization), where he or she can be treated against his or her will. This treatment may include the administration of psychoactive medications, including involuntary administration. In many jurisdictions, people diagnosed with mental disorders may also be forced to undergo treatment in the community, which is sometimes referred to as outpatient engagement and shares legal processes with commitment. The word incompetent is used to describe people who should not undergo or participate in certain legal proceedings, as well as for those who are unable to enter into contracts, manage their financial affairs and other personal affairs such as accepting medical treatment, etc., and who need a legal guardian to manage their affairs. With regard to jurisdiction and law, the right not to be prosecuted while unable to be tried has been decided by the United States Supreme Court as a guarantee through the Due Process Clause, which serves as a safeguard against arbitrary denial of life. of freedom or property by the government outside the sanction of the law. Gloomy v. United States (1960) is a landmark case of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court upheld a defendant`s right to a jurisdictional assessment before going to trial. In this section, we will discuss the medico-legal issues of psychological treatment, such as defense against mental illness, the ability to stand trial, and the purpose of punishment. We will also examine ethical and legal issues related to service delivery and the rights of patients with mental illness.
What is the legal responsibility or duty of mental health service providers to protect people threatened with bodily harm by a patient in their care? Should we respect the right to refuse treatment if someone is mentally disturbed? Should psychiatrists administer antipsychotics or other medications deemed necessary to treat patients against their will? Should clients with mental illness with a history of violent behaviour be referred for involuntary confinement or hospitalization? How can the rights of the individual be reconciled with the rights of society? Is the answer to these questions in the criminal justice system or in the psychiatric system? In what follows, we first summarize the most important perspectives on the ethical and medico-legal issues of psychological treatment. Ethical issues hаvе а bеаrіng оn thе рsусhоlоgіst-сlіеnt rеlаtіоnshір. Іn thе fіеld оf аbnоrmаl рsусhоlоgу, bоth lісеnsеd аnd unlісеnsеd рrоfеssіоnаls must uрhоld hіgh еthісаl stаndаrds whіlе dеаlіng wіth thеіr сlіеnts. Fоr іnstаnсе, thе іnfоrmаtіоn bеtwееn thеmsеlvеs аnd thеіr сlіеnts must rеmаіn соnfіdеntіаl. Моrеоvеr, thе рsусhоlоgіst must bе аwаrе оf іssuеs suсh аs bаrtеrіng оr bеfrіеndіng сlіеnts fоr sехuаl fаvоrs (Ваrlоw & Durаnd, 2008). Ноwеvеr, thеrе аrе іnstаnсеs thаt thе lаw bесоmеs іnсоmраtіblе wіth thе рrасtісе іn аbnоrmаl рsусhоlоgу. Being unable to distinguish right from wrong is a basis for being declared legally insane as a criminal defense. It has its origin in the M`Naghten rule, formulated in response to the 1843 acquittal of Daniel M`Naghten, a Scottish turner who murdered an English official while suffering from paranoid delusions. M`Naghten had mistaken him for the British Prime Minister, the intended objective, and believed that he was following the orders of a higher power. The central question of the M`Naghten rules could be formulated as follows: “Did the defendant know what he was doing or, if so, that it was wrong?” incompetent: used to describe persons who should not undergo or participate in certain legal proceedings, as well as for those who are unable to enter into contracts to settle their financial affairs and other personal matters such as acceptance of medical treatment, and so on. and need a legal guardian to manage their affairs Involuntary obligation: civil obligation or involuntary hospitalization – a legal procedure whereby a person classified by a qualified officer as a symptom of a serious mental disorder is detained in a psychiatric hospital (inpatient) where he or she can be treated against his or her will Is a person with mental illness charged with a capital crime has been convicted, capable or competent enough to understand the nature and purpose of the death penalty? The case of Alvin Bernard Ford underscores the complexity of the issue. Ford v.
Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986), was a seminal case that upheld the common law rule that the mentally ill cannot be executed. Ford was convicted of murder in 1974 and sentenced to death in Florida. In 1982, while on death row, Ford`s mental health deteriorated to a point resembling paranoid schizophrenia. Ford began calling himself Pope John Paul III, reporting accomplishments such as thwarting a giant Ku Klux Klan conspiracy to bury dead prisoners within prison walls, thwarting an attempt by prison guards to torture his female relatives in prison, and personally appointing nine new justices to the Florida Supreme Court. A panel of three psychiatrists was eventually called in to investigate Ford`s behavior, and he concluded that even though Ford suffered from psychosis and various mental disorders, he was still able to understand the nature of the death penalty and the impact such punishment would have on him. In 1984, a death sentence was signed for Ford. Ford sued Florida Department of Corrections Secretary Louie L. Wainwright, and took his case to the U.S.
Supreme Court to declare that he did not have the power to be executed. The court ruled in his favor and then addressed the procedural issues involved in establishing the insanity of the Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment). The Court, in an advisory opinion by Judge Marshall, considered the evolution of Eighth Amendment standards as compatible with the “progress of a maturing society” and acts traditionally characterized as “savage and inhumane” as executions of the mentally ill.