Search results
Klucz do Kamery na Allegro.pl - Zróżnicowany zbiór ofert, najlepsze ceny i promocje. Wejdź i znajdź to, czego szukasz!
In Rouse v. Cameron, 125 U.S.App. D.C. 366, 373 F.2d 451 (1966), the court indicated that persons committed to a mental hospital after pleading not guilty by reason of insanity have a constitutional right to treatment while institutionalized.
Rouse challenged his commitment on grounds of habeas corpus; he had been confined for four years at the time of the litigation. The District Court denied relief in habeas corpus and refused to consider Appellant’s contention that he had received no psychiatric treatment.
I. The principal issues raised by this appeal are whether a person involuntarily committed to a mental hospital on being acquitted of an offense by reason of insanity has a right to treatment that is cognizable in habeas corpus, and if so, how violation of this right may be established.
should hospitals and courts respond in a case similar to Rouse v. Cameron where the person, for example, refuses treatment? At least the following alternatives could be considered: to keep the person in the hospital and wait until he is ready to accept treatment; to employ coercive methods or treatment which do not require his cooperation;
Rouse testified at the habeas corpus hearing that he first became aware of the legal significance of what had occurred at his trial when he read a newspaper account of this court's decision in Cameron v. Mullen, supra.
When he was eighteen, Rouse was stopped by a police officer and ordered to open the “small but heavy suitcase” he was carrying. According to Rouse, he opened the suitcase only on the officer’s order. The case was found to contain a fully loaded automatic pistol and a large amount of ammunition.
