Krongard Mara Lynn
School of Law, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.
Calif Law Rev. 2002 Jan;90(1):111-63.
In its 1997 decision, Kansas v. Hendricks, the U.S. Supreme Court radically changed the face of civil commitment. In finding the Kansas Sexually Violent Predators Act constitutional, the Court liberalized the first constitutional requirement for involuntary commitment from "mental illness" to a much broader "mental abnormality" standard, without correspondingly restricting the second requirement of dangerousness. The decision essentially authorizes states to civilly commit a broad range of individuals without sufficient due process protections. This Comment explores the possibilities for expansion of civil commitment in the wake of Hendricks. It argues that the holding was unjustifiably broad, focusing in particular on the potential danger facing substance abusers. In conclusion, it offers several suggestions for mitigating the potential misuse of this dangerous precedent.
在1997年“堪萨斯州诉亨德里克斯案”的判决中，美国最高法院彻底改变了民事收押的面貌。在判定《堪萨斯州性暴力捕食者法》符合宪法时，法院放宽了非自愿收押的第一项宪法要求，从“精神疾病”放宽到更为宽泛的“精神异常”标准，却没有相应地限制第二项危险性要求。该判决实质上授权各州在没有充分正当程序保护的情况下对大量人员进行民事收押。本评论探讨了亨德里克斯案之后民事收押扩大的可能性。它认为该判决的范围不合理地宽泛，尤其关注药物滥用者面临的潜在危险。最后，它提出了一些建议，以减轻这一危险先例可能被滥用的情况。
