Entsprechend dem Lehrbuch Lockhart, Kamisar u. Choper
konstitutionell
Gesetz, passender Prozeß des Substantive garantiert
durch die US. Beschaffenheit ist
" eine Beschränkung der Substanz der
gesetzgebenden Tätigkeit durch den Zustand
und Bundesregierungen " (Westpublikation Co., 1970, P. 454,
Hauptgewicht
hinzugefügt). Eine Majorität Meinung des
US-Obersten Gerichtes 1887
geschrieben durch Justice Harlan gesagt: " unter unserem
System, das Energie ist
untergebracht mit dem gesetzgebenden Zweig der Regierung.
Sie gehört
Anwenden zu dieser Abteilung zum, was als die Polizeienergien
von bekannt
der Zustand und feststellen hauptsächlich was Masse appro-
sind
priate oder notwendiges für den Schutz der allgemeinen
Moral,
öffentliches Gesundheitswesen oder die allgemeine
Sicherheit. ..., [ aber ] er überhaupt nicht
folgen Sie daß jedes Gesetz, das anscheinend für die
Förderung von verordnet
diese Enden soll als gesetzmaßige Anstrengung der Polizei
angenommen werden
Energien des Zustandes. Es gibt, von der
Notwendigkeit, über der hinaus Begrenzungen
Gesetzgebung kann nicht rechtmäßig gehen.
Während jede mögliche Vermutung
ist, zugunsten eines Gesetzes hingegeben zu werden, die
Gerichte müssen befolgen
Beschaffenheit anstatt die Gesetzgebungabteilung der
Regierung,
und muß, nach ihrer eigenen Verantwortlichkeit, ob, in
irgendwelchen feststellen
bestimmter Fall, diese Begrenzungen geführt worden.
...,
Gerichte... sind unter einer ernsten Aufgabe, die Substanz
von zu betrachten
Sachen, wann immer sie die Anfrage ob beginnen
Gesetzgebung überschritten die Begrenzungen auf seine
Berechtigung.
Wenn
folglich ein Gesetz, das behauptet verordnet worden zu sein,
um zu schützen
öffentliches Gesundheitswesen, die allgemeine Moral oder die
allgemeine Sicherheit, hat Nr.
reale oder erhebliche Relation zu jenen Nachrichten oder ist
ein offensichtliches
Invasion der Rechte gesichert durch das grundlegende Gesetz
[
Beschaffenheit ], ist es die Aufgabe der Gerichte, also
entscheiden Sie und
Wirksamkeit zur Beschaffenheit dadurch verleihen " (Mugler V.
Kansas, 123
US 623 bei 661).
In seinem
Buch der Mythus der
Geisteskrankheit, Psychiatrieprofessor
Thomas Szasz, M.D., sagt, daß " es üblich ist,
Psychiatrie
wie zu definieren
ein medizinisches Spezialgebiet betroffen mit der Studie, der
Diagnose und der Festlichkeit
ment von den Geisteskrankheiten. Dieses ist ein
wertloses und ein irreführend
Definition. Geisteskrankheit ist ein Mythus.
Psychiatrists sind nicht
betroffen mit Geisteskrankheiten und ihren Behandlungen. In
tatsächlichem
mit Praxis-, die sie persönliches beschäftigen, Sozial-
und
ethischeprobleme innen
leben " (Publikation Dell Co., 1961, P. 296). Entsprechend
der Abdeckung
Artikel im Juli 6, 1992 festsetzen der
Zeitschrift zen, Schizophrenie ist
" devilish von den Geisteskrankheiten " (P. 53). Aber in
seinem Buch
Gegen die Therapieveröffentlicht 1988, Jeffrey
Masson, Ph.D., a
Psychoanalyst, sagt, daß " es ein erhöhtes
Bewußtsein der
Gefahren gibt
zugehörig, wenn Sie jemand mit einer Krankheitkategorie
beschriften, mögen Sie schiz-
ophrenia und viele Leute anfangen e, festzustellen, daß es
Nr. gibt
solche Instanz " (Atheneum-/Macmillanpublikation Co., 1988,
P. 2).
Wenn es keine solche Instanz wie Geisteskrankheit gibt, Dose
Gesetze die
autorisieren Sie incarcerating Leute, nicht weil sie
durchgeführt
ungesetzliche Taten aber bloß, weil sie " Geisteskrankheit
"
sein lassen
konstitutionell?
Annehmen
Sie das ÿÿ, anstatt, an Geisteskrankheit,
Leute zu glauben
heute geglaubt an schlechten Geistbesitz und erklärtes
sonderbares oder
nicht annehmbares Verhalten als das Produkt des schlechten
Geistes.
Annehmen Sie einiges n
oder alle Zustände verordneten dann die Gesetze, die das
incarcera- autorisieren
tion der Leute, die durch schlechten Geist besessen (anstelle
von den Leuten
wer angenommen durch Geisteskrankheiten besessen). Sein
dieses
eine korrekte und konstitutionelle Übung der gesetzgebenden
Energie?
Übel
Geistbesitz hat keine objektive Wirklichkeit und existierent
nur in
Phantasien der Leute, die an schlechten Geist glauben.
Geisteskrankheit
auch hat keine objektive Wirklichkeit und existierent nur in
den Phantasien
von den Leuten, die an Geisteskrankheit glauben. Das
Verhalten,
das erhält
die Leute beschriftet geistlich krank (oder durch schlechten
Geist besessen) sind nicht
eingebildet; aber Geisteskrankheit- oder Übelgeistbesitz
als
Erklärung von , warum sie benehmen, wie
sie, ist.
Heute in vielen Zuständen der Vereinigten Staaten
gibt es Gesetze, die
ermöglichen Sie die unfreiwillige Verpflichtung
(Einsperrung) der Leute für
Geisteskrankheit alleine, ohne eine Vertretung zu benötigen,
welche die Person hat
festlegte überhaupt eine ungültige Tat ige. Wenn
wir zu den incarcerateleuten wünschen
weil sie uns eigenartig scheinen, oder weil sie Sachen das
sagen
seien Sie nicht zutreffend, oder das sind nicht sinnvoll
oder, weil wir das denken
trotz a hinter dem umfaßt keine ungesetzliche
Aktivität,
die sie tun konnten
etwas, das zukünftig, dann das falsch ist, ist, was die
Gesetze sagen sollten -
obgleich so tun konstitutionelle Fragen aufwerfen konnte.
Verwenden
" Geisteskrankheit " als die Rechtfertigung für Einsperrung
ist wie
unlogisch und nicht gerechtfertigt als Erklären des
Verhaltens, das wir ablehnen und
verstehen Sie nicht als das Produkt des schlechten
Geistbesitzes und
Verpflichtung Gesetze für Leute haben, die durch Übel
besessen
Geist.
Da
Gesetze in einigen Zuständen " Geisteskrankheit
" als die Sohle verwenden
Rechtfertigung für incarcerating Leute, die nie getan haben
können
alles ungültig (oder manchmal als ein benötigte das
Element, das mit verbunden
angebliche Notwendigkeit an der Hospitalisierung oder an
vorausgesagter zukünftiger Führung -
"dangerousness"), and since there is no such thing as
mental
illness, are not these statutes violations of substantive due
pro-
cess?
There are
a few groups in particular who tend to be the target
of America's involuntary psychiatric commitment laws.
Included in
these are the young, the old, and the homeless. Sometimes
old
people are placed in mental hospitals just to get them out of
the
way. In most cases, nursing homes would be more
appropriate, but
often nursing homes are not preferred by the family because
they
are more costly and must be paid for by the family.
Involuntary
psychiatric commitment laws are used to get homeless people off
the
streets and sidewalks. Adolescents are committed by parents
as a
way of shifting the balance of power towards parents in
intra-
family conflicts, parents usually being the ones who have the
money
to hire psychiatrists to incarcerate their family member
adversaries and define their opposing views and disliked
behaviors
as illnesses. In many states parents have statutory power
to
commit their children who are under age 18 without judicial
proceedings, in large part because of the decision by the
U.S.
Supreme Court in Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979).
This Supreme
Court decision in 1979 is probably largely responsible for the
fact
that in the years immediately following it "adolescent
admission
rates to psychiatric units of private hospitals have jumped
dra-
matically, increasing four-fold between 1980 and 1984" (Lois
A.
Weithorn, Ph.D., "Mental Hospitalization of Troublesome
Youth: An
Analysis of Skyrocketing Admission Rates", 40 Stanford Law
Review
773). According to another report, "private
psychiatric hospital
admissions for teenagers are the fastest-growing segment of
the
hospital industry. ... Between 1980 and 1987 the number of
people
between 10 and 19 discharged from psychiatric units increased
43
percent, from 126,000 to 180,000. One reason is the
aggressive
advertising used by for-profit psychiatric facilities"
(Christina
Kelly, "She's Not Crazy But 14-year-old Sara got committed
anyway",
Sassy magazine, March 1990, p. 44). According to
another report,
between 1971 and 1991 "the number of teenagers hospitalized
for
psychiatric care has increased from 16,000 to 263,000"
(Time
magazine, August 26, 1991, p. 12). According to
University of
Michigan professor Ira Schwartz, "psychiatric hospitals are
turning
into jails for kids" (Sassy magazine, March 1990, p.
44).
Of course, mental "hospitals" are jails for all
persons
detained there against their will. Furthermore, they are
places
where people may be incarcerated with no showing of prior
illegal
(or otherwise harmful) conduct - only "mental illness".
Yet
statutes authorizing commitment for mental illness do not
define
mental illness but let supposed professionals (psychiatrists)
define it any way they see fit. If subjected to proper
constitutional scrutiny, such laws would be void for vagueness,
as
would a statute allowing imprisonment for something called
"crime"
but which failed to define crime - leaving potential
"criminals" in
doubt about whether marijuana or alcohol use is legal,
whether
driving 65 mph on the highway is legal, or whether the age of
consent for what in the presence of a statute would be called
statutory rape is 16 or 18 or some other age - allowing each
prosecuting attorney to determine after the fact whether a
particular act is definable as "crime", much as
psychiatrists often
determine after the fact whether a particular act or expression
of
ideas constitutes "mental illness".
Have we
forgotten that America is supposed to be a nation
where all law-abiding persons are guaranteed liberty?
How can a
person know what behavior is prohibited if the laws are not
clearly
written? People like myself who believe strongly in
individual
freedom argue that violation of the rights of others should be
the
only acts prohibited by law; others will defend victimless
crime
laws. In either case, violation of law should be the
only basis
for depriving a person of his or her liberty over his or her
protest.
One 14
year old girl who had been involuntarily committed to
a private psychiatric hospital after an argument with her
parents
said "My parents would always threaten me with the
hospital" (Sassy
magazine, March 1990, p. 82). But it isn't only
adolescents and
old people who are threatened with psychiatric incarceration
in
their conflicts with family members. In her autobiography,
Will
There Really Be a Morning?, actress Frances Farmer tells how
even
when she was 30 years old her mother in seemingly every
dispute
would threaten her with commitment to a mental hospital near
her
home in Seattle, Washington:
"`I'm just about at the end of my rope with you,' she
warned.
`I've just about had all I can take. I've put up with you
for
years and what do I get for it? Nothing! Absolutely
nothing! But
you're my daughter and you're going to do exactly as I say, or
back
[to the mental hospital] you go. Do You understand me?
Back you
go! And this time for keeps! ... You're a disgusting brat!'
she
spat contemptuously.
"`I'm a thirty-year-old woman,' I answered bitterly.
`And I
know damn good and well that you'll send me back the first
chance
you get.' ... I could not cope with another fight. `I'm
going back
to bed,' I said flatly. `This whole thing is absurd.'
"I
started up the stairs, but her reply stopped me short.
`I'm sending you back, Frances.' I was chilled by her
sudden calm.
`And this time,' she went on, `I'll see you that you stay.'
...
"It
was morning, and I heard my mother rise. It startled me
when she knocked softly at my door.
"`Frances,' she said calmly. `I'd like you to
get dressed and
come down stairs. There are some people here who want to
meet
you.' ...
"My
mother was in the living room with two uniformed men...and
I knew! ... They straddled me, and I felt the rough canvas
of the
straitjacket wrap around me and buckle into place" (Dell
Publishing
Co., 1972, pp. 15-33).
In
America and other nations that claim to value freedom and
defend human rights, legislators writing "mental
health" laws and
those making personal or judicial decisions about what to do
with
a so-called mentally ill person or persons should keep in mind
that
America's guarantees of personal freedom are the basis for
American
patriotism. Listen, for example, to the words of a
patriotic song,
"God Bless the USA": "If tomorrow all the things
were gone I'd
worked for all my life, and I had to start again with just my
children and my wife, I'd thank my lucky stars to be living
here
today. `Cause the flag still stands for freedom, and they
can't
take that away! And I'm proud to be an American,
where at least I
know I'm free. And I won't forget the men who died who
gave that
right to me. And I'll gladly stand up next to you and
defend her
still today. `Cause there is no doubt I love this Land.
God bless
the USA!" (emphasis added). Similarly, a Russian
immigrant to the
United States said this in an article published in Reader's
Digest
in 1991: "I looked up at the [United States] flag,
fluttering in
the breeze. ... Suddenly, I understood ... America isn't
about
school sweaters or Johnny Mathis records or shiny new cars.
It's
about freedom and opportunity - not just for the privileged or
the
native-born - but for everyone" (Constantin Galskoy,
"How I Became
an American", Reader's Digest, August 1991, p. 76).
The USA's
official national anthem "The Star Spangled Banner"
refers to Amer-
ica as "the land of the free". The Pledge of
Allegiance to the
Flag of the United States of America ends with the words
"...with
liberty and justice for all." One of America's most
popular and
prominent symbols is the Statue of Liberty. Another
statue, this
one sitting atop the dome of the U.S. Capitol Building in
Washington, D.C., is called the Statue of Freedom.
In 1987 in a
law journal article discussing constitutional due process,
U.S.
Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., said "every
enact-
ment of every state...may be challenged at the Bar of the Court
on
the ground that such action, such legislation, is a deprivation
of
liberty without due process of law...those ideals of human
dignity
- liberty and justice for all individuals - will continue to
inspire and guide us because they are entrenched in our
Constitu-
tion" (Case & Comment, September-October 1987, p.
21). Imagine how
empty and meaningless these patriotic words in these
articles,
patriotic songs, the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, the names
of
these national monuments, and the U.S. Constitution sound to a
law-
abiding person who has been imprisoned (involuntarily
"hospital-
ized") for so-called mental illness in the USA merely
because
others dislike his or her thoughts, ideas, emotions,
lifestyle,
personality, or lawful (even if irritating) behavior, or because
he
or she gets along poorly with others in his or her family.
A reason involuntary psychiatric commitment of law-abiding
people is a violation of constitutionally guaranteed
substantive
due process is it is contrary to the most important values
America
and other democracies claim to stand for. This is just as
true for
those under the arbitrarily defined age of majority as it is
for
adults. In his inaugural address on January 20, 1989,
President
George Bush said "Great nations, like great men, must keep
their
word. When America says something, America means it -
whether a
treaty, or an agreement, or a vow made on marble steps."
One of
the consequences of belief in the myth of mental illness is
Ameri-
ca's failure to live up to one of its most fundamental
promises:
liberty for all law-abiding Americans.
THE AUTHOR, Lawrence Stevens, is a lawyer whose practice has
included representing psychiatric "patients". His
pamphlets are
not copyrighted. You are invited to make copies for
distribution
to those who you think will benefit.
[ HauptSeite | Zunächst Artikel: "Warum Psychiatrie Abgeschaffen werden Sollte als medizinisches Spezialgebiet" ]