Suppr超能文献

“唯有厄运算数”:国际人权法能否成为惩教条件诉讼中权利的有效来源?

"It's doom alone that counts": can international human rights law be an effective source of rights in correctional conditions litigation?

作者信息

Perlin Michael L, Dlugacz Henry A

机构信息

New York Law School, New York, NY 10013, USA.

出版信息

Behav Sci Law. 2009 Sep-Oct;27(5):675-94. doi: 10.1002/bsl.895.

Abstract

Over the past three decades, the U.S. judiciary has grown increasingly less receptive to claims by convicted felons as to the conditions of their confinement while in prison. Although courts have not articulated a return to the "hands off" policy of the 1950s, it is clear that it has become significantly more difficult for prisoners to prevail in constitutional correctional litigation. The passage and aggressive implementation of the Prison Litigation Reform Act has been a powerful disincentive to such litigation in many areas of prisoners' rights law. From the perspective of the prisoner, the legal landscape is more hopeful in matters that relate to mental health care and treatment. Here, in spite of a general trend toward more stringent applications of standards of proof and a reluctance to order sweeping, intrusive remedies, some courts have aggressively protected prisoners' rights to be free from "deliberate indifference" to serious medical needs, and to be free from excessive force on the part of prison officials. A mostly hidden undercurrent in some prisoners' rights litigation has been the effort on the part of some plaintiffs' lawyers to look to international human rights doctrines as a potential source of rights, an effort that has met with some modest success. It receives support by the inclination of other courts to turn to international human rights conventions-even in nations where such conventions have not been ratified-as a kind of "best practice" in the area. The recent publication and subsequent ratification (though not, as of yet, by the United States) of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) may add new support to those using international human rights documents as a basis for litigating prisoners' rights claims. To the best of our knowledge, there has, as of yet, been no scholarly literature on the question of the implications of the CRPD on the state of prisoners' rights law in a U.S. domestic context. In this article, we raise this question, and offer some tentative conclusions.

摘要

在过去三十年里,美国司法机构对已定罪重罪犯就其监禁期间的监禁条件提出的申诉越来越缺乏接受度。尽管法院并未明确表示要回归到20世纪50年代的“不干涉”政策,但很明显,囚犯要在宪法性惩教诉讼中胜诉变得困难得多。《监狱诉讼改革法》的通过及其积极实施,在囚犯权利法的许多领域对这类诉讼起到了强有力的抑制作用。从囚犯的角度来看,在与精神卫生保健和治疗相关的问题上,法律前景更有希望。在此,尽管总体趋势是更严格地适用证据标准,且不愿下令采取全面、侵入性的补救措施,但一些法院积极保护囚犯免受对严重医疗需求的“故意漠视”以及免受监狱官员过度使用武力的权利。在一些囚犯权利诉讼中,一个大多不为人知的暗流是,一些原告律师努力将国际人权学说视为潜在的权利来源,这一努力取得了一些小成功。它得到了其他法院倾向于参考国际人权公约(即使在尚未批准此类公约的国家)作为该领域“最佳实践”的支持。《联合国残疾人权利公约》(CRPD)最近的发布及随后的批准(截至目前,美国尚未批准)可能会为那些以国际人权文件为依据对囚犯权利主张进行诉讼的人提供新的支持。据我们所知,截至目前,尚无关于《联合国残疾人权利公约》对美国国内背景下囚犯权利法状况的影响这一问题的学术文献。在本文中,我们提出这个问题,并给出一些初步结论。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验