canada legal system Flashcards
(39 cards)
Civil Commitment
Confining a person to a mental institution
~Person hasn’t broken law
~Mentally ill
~Danger to self or others
Civil commitment procedures:infromal
emergency commitment, if hospitable believes person is dangerous to others
Just enough time to see if formal commitment is to be granted
civil commitment:formal
Order of court
Any responsible person can petition court to commit a person
If reasonable to judge, the judge will order person to be confined for 72 hours
Enough time for through mental health evaluation
Court can order person to be confined in mental institution
Community(copmulsory) Treatment orders(CTO)
Doesn’t involve confinement in mental institution
Allows person to go back to society with conditions(usually if person in under treatment)
Deprives people of ability to choose treatment or not
Freedoms and rights Relevant to mental illness
Protection from arbitrary(forced) detention or imprisonment
Life liberty and personal security
Conscience and religion
Choosing not to take a medication is a matter of conscience
Thought,belief,opinion, and expression
Equal protection without discrimination based on “mental disability”
Standard for Civil Commitment
Provinces differ in terms of:
Dangerousness Model
Treatment Model
Dangerousness Model
Involuntary hospitalization should be reserved for cases in which the person is at serious risk of physically harming themselves or others
Pros of dangerousness model over treatment model(class discussion): Person not in the right mind to choose their behavior
Treatment Model
Involuntary hospitalization should also be used to provide treatment for people who would otherwise by harmed(ie:severe frightening symptoms, serious deterioration) in the absence of treatment
Pros of treatment model: preserving person’s autonomy as much as possible, prevention approach(doesn’t wait until someone harms others or themselves)
Decisional capacity: people should be allowed to make decisions, but what if they cant
Prediction of Dangerousness
Actuarial methods best but still weak
We know some data in predicting future reoffending
We know when we make an error, if person is released from prison and then reoffends
In violent offenders, best predictors are PCL-R(psychopathy checklist revised), history of early violence and maladjustment
Schizophrenia is a negative predictor of repeat violence
People with schizophrenia are less likely to commit repeat violence
Cognitive impairment
The inability to perceive accurately or reason correctly about the outside world
Volitional impairment
inadequate to control your own behavior
Law typically defines mental disorder as any impairment of psychological functioning that is internal,stables and involuntary in nature, not situational,contextual, or transitory, and not self induced
What are the primary differences between legal and psychological definitions of mental disorder in canada
Clinical definition: focuses on personal distress
Legal definition: neglects if person is distressed
~More objective evaluation
~Law needs consider mental disordered behavior even if not clinically diagnosed
Confidentiality
Secret
~nothing said or written will be revealed
~Important for receiving mental health services
Privilege
Information and communication between 2 people can not be heard by the court
Ie:court cant demand from the priest what the person confessed on the day of the crime
Client holds the privilege, clients right
Limits to confidentiality-duty to warn
Ie: If you talk about engaging in child abuse or homicidal ideation
Limits to privilege
Client may sue for malpractice, then they give away their privilege
Tarasoff vs. Regents of the University of California(1974,California)
Grad student who was interested in Tarasoff, while she was not
He threatened to buy a gun and kill her
Psychiatrist decided theres not enough evidence for civil commitment
He did kill her
His psychologist where he confessed that he wants to kill her should have warned Tarasoff about wanting to kill her
Duty to warn:
psychologist should warn people if they are in danger if their patient confesses to harm someone specific
Ahmed vs Stefaniu
Wanted to kill his sister and was admitted
December 3 he has psychotic symptoms and the next day he confessed to a psychiatrist that he was faking his mental disorder
He was released the next day and then killed his sister a few weeks later
Smith vs Jones(1999,supreme court of canada)
The Appellant sought to keep secret the professional opinion of the Respondent, a psychologist, whom the former had retained as part of his trial for aggravated assault of a prostitute.
Right to Refuse Treatment
Starson v. Swayze(2003)
Wanted to kill a car salesman
Ontario board stated that he doesn’t have the right to refuse treatment
Supreme court ruled that if someone has the capacity to accept treatment they have the right to refuse treatment
Starson was found NCRMD(not criminally responsible on the account of a mental disorder) for uttering death threats in 1998 but refuses treatment
Supreme court ruled that “best treatment” is not relevant to Starson’s legal rights
Can’t force them to go on treatment but must have access to treatment
Psychologists in the legal system
People with specialized knowledge
* Expert in something
Clinical or counseling psychologists
Forensic psychologists
* Assist in legal proceedings
* Risk assessment
* Diverse and growing field
Ethical codes
broad statements of values that provide guidelines to make decisions
Core values that underlie practice
Implied social contract between psychologists and the public