Abstract
Authorities are now embracing the notion that virtually all involuntarily civilly committed persons are entitled to psychological treatment. This right to treatment has been founded on several distinct arguments, all of which are at odds with both precedent and a proper application of constitutional standards of review. The author concludes that the standard right to treatment arguments should be disregarded and replaced with an argument—the least restrictive alternative right to treatment theory—which is consistent with logic, precedent, and proper constitutional analysis.
How to Cite
20 Ariz. L. Rev. 1 (1978)
82
Views
36
Downloads