Washington\u27s Sexually Violent Predator Law: A Deliberate Misuse of the Therapeutic State for Social Control

This Article will demonstrate that the Washington legislature deliberately chose to abuse the medical model of involuntary commitment for treatment in order to achieve lifetime preventive detention. In so doing, the legislature violated fundamental constitutional principles that underlie our system of social care and control and safeguard individual liberty

Washington\u27s Sexually Violent Predators Statute: Law or Lottery? A Response to Professor Brooks

In this Symposium Article, the author responds to Alexander D. Brooks, The Constitutionality and Morality of Civilly Committing Violent Sexual Predators, article

The Case for Liberalizing the Use of Deadly Force in Self-Defense

This article sets forth the primary theories which might underlie the right of self-defense: necessity, duress, and personal autonomy. The article then examines the common law and the law of Washington governing the use of force in self-defense and demonstrates that both are grounded primarily in the utilitarian theory of necessity, which has as its primary objective the minimization of social loss even at the cost of harm to individual innocent victims. The article then analyzes the inadequate manner in which Washington courts are resolving difficult cases involving the use of deadly force in self-defense. Finally, the article argues that the law of self-defense ought to be grounded primarily in the theory of personal autonomy and, accordingly, that the law should be changed explicitly to permit recourse to deadly force by innocent victims against aggressors whenever necessary to defend effectively against unlawful violence. Additionally, the article argues that such a shift in underlying theory and explicit reformulation is not necessarily inconsistent with utilitarian objectives and that, in any event and more importantly, such a shift is necessary to insure that the law is congruent with current public values and affords citizens reasonable assurance of preserving their bodily integrity

Observations on the Insanity Defense and Involuntary Civil Commitment in Europe

There are several perspectives from which one could analyze the insanity defense and involuntary civil commitment in foreign legal systems. However, the comparative perspective on which this Essay is based focuses on: a) how foreign legal systems formulate and administer the insanity defense; b) how the power of the state is defined to civilly commit mentally ill persons; c) who makes the important decisions and when and how they are made; and d) what happens to offenders who are considered mentally ill and to others who are considered mentally ill and suitable for involuntary commitment

Washington\u27s Sexually Violent Predator Law: A Deliberate Misuse of the Therapeutic State for Social Control

This Article will demonstrate that the Washington legislature deliberately chose to abuse the medical model of involuntary commitment for treatment in order to achieve lifetime preventive detention. In so doing, the legislature violated fundamental constitutional principles that underlie our system of social care and control and safeguard individual liberty

Book Review: \u3cem\u3eH. Fingarette & A. Fingarette Hasse, Mental Disabilities and Criminal Responsibilities\u3c/em\u3e

Whether mental illness and related impairments in the human psyche should affect an individual\u27s criminal responsibilityfor law-breaking behavior has always provoked intense andwide-ranging debate. This debate clearly reflects society\u27s lack of consensus concerning the appropriateness and scope of considering mental impairment in assessing individual criminal responsiblility. Thus, it is not unexpected that recently proposals to abolish the insanity defense have been seriously suggested or that noted scholars have urged society to place the disposition of mentally ill offenders in the exclusive hands of experts. That this heated discussion continues unabated should come as no surprise, since legal doctrines which excuse or lessen criminal responsibility force us to reexamine the very purposes of imposing punishment through our criminal justice system

The Case for Liberalizing the Use of Deadly Force in Self-Defense

This article sets forth the primary theories which might underlie the right of self-defense: necessity, duress, and personal autonomy. The article then examines the common law and the law of Washington governing the use of force in self-defense and demonstrates that both are grounded primarily in the utilitarian theory of necessity, which has as its primary objective the minimization of social loss even at the cost of harm to individual innocent victims. The article then analyzes the inadequate manner in which Washington courts are resolving difficult cases involving the use of deadly force in self-defense. Finally, the article argues that the law of self-defense ought to be grounded primarily in the theory of personal autonomy and, accordingly, that the law should be changed explicitly to permit recourse to deadly force by innocent victims against aggressors whenever necessary to defend effectively against unlawful violence. Additionally, the article argues that such a shift in underlying theory and explicit reformulation is not necessarily inconsistent with utilitarian objectives and that, in any event and more importantly, such a shift is necessary to insure that the law is congruent with current public values and affords citizens reasonable assurance of preserving their bodily integrity

Book Review: \u3cem\u3eH. Fingarette & A. Fingarette Hasse, Mental Disabilities and Criminal Responsibilities\u3c/em\u3e

Whether mental illness and related impairments in the human psyche should affect an individual\u27s criminal responsibilityfor law-breaking behavior has always provoked intense andwide-ranging debate. This debate clearly reflects society\u27s lack of consensus concerning the appropriateness and scope of considering mental impairment in assessing individual criminal responsiblility. Thus, it is not unexpected that recently proposals to abolish the insanity defense have been seriously suggested or that noted scholars have urged society to place the disposition of mentally ill offenders in the exclusive hands of experts. That this heated discussion continues unabated should come as no surprise, since legal doctrines which excuse or lessen criminal responsibility force us to reexamine the very purposes of imposing punishment through our criminal justice system

Observations on the Insanity Defense and Involuntary Civil Commitment in Europe

There are several perspectives from which one could analyze the insanity defense and involuntary civil commitment in foreign legal systems. However, the comparative perspective on which this Essay is based focuses on: a) how foreign legal systems formulate and administer the insanity defense; b) how the power of the state is defined to civilly commit mentally ill persons; c) who makes the important decisions and when and how they are made; and d) what happens to offenders who are considered mentally ill and to others who are considered mentally ill and suitable for involuntary commitment