Schopp Robert F
University of Nebraska College of Law, P.O. Box 830902, Lincoln, NE 68583-0902, USA.
Psychol Public Policy Law. 2003 Mar-Jun;9(1-2):33-69. doi: 10.1037/1076-8971.9.1-2.33.
This article examines three criticisms frequently directed toward preventive commitment as one form of outpatient commitment. These criticisms contend that preventive commitment (a) abandons the dangerousness criteria for civil commitmnet, (b) promotes unwarranted inpatient commitment of those who do not meet civil commitment criteria, and (c) undermines important individual liberties by diluting the right to refuse treatment. Understanding and evaluating these criticisms requires analysis of the intersection among empirical, conceptual, and justificatory claims. According to the analysis presented here, advocates of preventive commitment can defend a legitimate role for preventive commitment. This analysis applies to preventive commitment as a dispositional alternative within a comprehensive institution of civil commitment involving distinct parens patriae and police power components.
本文探讨了作为门诊强制治疗一种形式的预防性强制治疗经常受到的三种批评。这些批评认为，预防性强制治疗（a）摒弃了民事强制治疗的危险性标准，（b）促使那些不符合民事强制治疗标准的人被无端强制住院，以及（c）通过削弱拒绝治疗的权利来破坏重要的个人自由。理解和评估这些批评需要分析实证、概念和正当性主张之间的交叉点。根据此处给出的分析，预防性强制治疗的倡导者可以为预防性强制治疗的合理作用进行辩护。这种分析适用于预防性强制治疗，它是民事强制治疗综合制度中的一种处置选择，该制度涉及不同的家长式权力和警察权力组成部分。
