翻訳と辞書
Words near each other
・ Jones v Lock
・ Jones v New Brunswick (AG)
・ Jones v Padavatton
・ Jones v Post Office
・ Jones v University of Manchester
・ Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co.
・ Jones v. Bock
・ Jones v. City of Opelika (1942)
・ Jones v. Cunningham
・ Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment Recordings LLC
・ Jones v. Flowers
・ Jones v. Harris Associates
・ Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Labor Union
・ Jones v. Racetrac Petroleum Inc.
・ Jones v. United States
Jones v. United States (1983)
・ Jones v. United States (1999)
・ Jones v. Van Zandt
・ Jones Valley
・ Jones Variety Hits
・ Jones Very
・ Jones Victor Mawulorm Dotse
・ Jones Warehouses
・ Jones! (New Zealand)
・ Jones' Battery
・ Jones' Fantastic Museum
・ Jones' stain
・ Jones' van (Dad's Army)
・ Jones's Mill
・ Jones's roundleaf bat


Dictionary Lists
翻訳と辞書 辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ]
スポンサード リンク

Jones v. United States (1983) : ウィキペディア英語版
Jones v. United States (1983)

''Jones v. United States'', is a United States Supreme Court case in which the court, for the first time, addressed whether the United States Constitution allows defendants, who were found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) of a misdemeanor crime, to be involuntarily confined to a mental institution until such times as they are no longer a danger to themselves or others with few other criteria or procedures limiting the actions of the state.〔

==Background==
Historically, those persons acquitted of a crime by reason of insanity (insanity acquittees) were subjected to commitment procedures to institutions for the "criminally insane" with little attention or oversight provided as to what these procedures were. In the early 1970s, the procedures began to be examined legally on constitutional as well as therapeutic grounds.〔
At that time, U.S. state jurisdictions had varying criteria and procedures governing this situation. In some states, insanity acquittees were governed by the same rules and procedures as an individual facing civil commitment. Another group of states, although treating insanity acquittees in a generally similar fashion as the civilly committed, had more stringent criteria governing insanity acquittees; for example, in emergency commitment proceedings in which a civilly committed person may be committed for a maximum of one week, an insanity acquittee may be committed on an emergency basis for 90 days—and then the discharge would take place only after judicial approval. A third group subjected an insanity acquittee to automatic, indefinite commitment, usually with periodic reviews to determine if commitment continued to be necessary.

抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)
ウィキペディアで「Jones v. United States (1983)」の詳細全文を読む



スポンサード リンク
翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース

Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.