Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMcAllister, Stephen R.
dc.date.accessioned2013-07-16T18:15:55Z
dc.date.available2013-07-16T18:15:55Z
dc.date.issued1998
dc.identifier.citationStephen R. McAllister, Sex Offenders and Mental Illness: A Lesson in Federalism and the Separation of Powers, 4 PSYCHOL. PUB. POL’Y & L. 268 (1998).
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1808/11492
dc.descriptionFull-text available at SSRN. See link in this record.
dc.description.abstractThe Supreme Court’s recent decision in Kansas v. Hendricks provides an exclamation point to the proposition that the Court will defer to reasonable legislative judgments regarding the substance of state civil commitment laws. This article argues that such deference is appropriate as a matter of constitutional law because of important institutional and structural considerations. For mental health professionals interested in influencing the law of civil commitment, the Hendricks decision suggests two propositions: (a) Mental health professionals must offer their expertise and input in the legislative process, and (b) when possible, mental health professionals should identify and explain for the courts any professional consensus on important issues regarding the definition and treatment of mental conditions.
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.publisherAmerican Psychological Association
dc.relation.hasversionhttp://ssrn.com/abstract=2044078
dc.titleSex Offenders and Mental Illness: A Lesson in Federalism and the Separation of Powers
dc.typeArticle
kusw.kuauthorMcAllister, Stephen R.
kusw.kudepartmentSchool of Law
kusw.oastatuswaivelicense
kusw.oapolicyThe license granted by the OA policy is waived for this item.
dc.rights.accessrightsopenAccess


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record