Mental health laws exist in many countries to regulate the involuntary detention and treatment of individuals with serious mental illnesses. 'Rights-based legalism' is a term used to describe mental health laws that refer to the rights of individuals with mental illnesses somewhere in their provisions. The advent of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities makes it timely to rethink the way in which the rights of individuals to autonomy and liberty are balanced against state interests in protecting individuals from harm to self or others. This collection addresses some of the current issues and problems arising from rights-based mental health laws. The chapters have been grouped in five parts as follows: - Historical Foundations - The International Human Rights Framework and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities - Gaps Between Law and Practice - Review Processes and the Role of Tribunals - Access to Mental Health Services Many of the chapters in this collection emphasise the importance of moving away from the limitations of a negative rights approach to mental health laws towards more positive rights of social participation. While the law may not always be the best way through which to alleviate social and personal predicaments, legislation is paramount for the functioning of the mental health system. The aim of this collection is to encourage the enactment of legal provisions governing treatment, detention and care that are workable and conform to international human rights documents.

Mental health laws exist in many countries to regulate the involuntary detention and treatment of individuals with serious mental illnesses. 'Rights-based legalism' is a term used to describe mental health laws that refer to the rights of individuals with mental illnesses somewhere in their provisions. The advent of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities makes it timely to rethink the way in which the rights of individuals to autonomy and liberty are balanced against state interests in protecting individuals from harm to self or others. This collection addresse.

This book explores the human rights consequences of recent and ongoing revisions of mental health legislation in England and Ireland. Presenting a critical discussion of the World Health Organization's 'Checklist on Mental Health Legislation' from its Resource Book on Mental Health, Human Rights and Legislation, the author uses this checklist as a frame-work for analysis to examine the extent to which mental health legislation complies with the WHO human rights standards. The author also examines recent case-law from the European Court of Human Rights, and looks in depth at the implications of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities for mental health law in England and Ireland. Focusing on dignity, human rights and mental health law, the work sets out to determine to what extent, if any, human rights concerns have influenced recent revisions of mental health legislation, and to what extent recent developments in mental health law have assisted in protecting and promoting the human rights of the mentally ill. The author seeks to articulate better, clearer and more connected ways to protect and promote the rights of the mentally ill though both law and policy.

Examining the treatment of persons with mental disabilities in the criminal justice system, this book offers new perspectives that are crucial to an understanding of the ways in which society projects onto criminal defendants prejudices and attitudes about responsibility, free will, autonomy, choice, public safety, and the meaning and purpose of punishment, all with a focus on ways to enhance dignity in the criminal trial process. It is a detailed exploration of issues of adequacy of counsel; the impact of international human rights law, following the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD); the role of mental health courts; and the influence of therapeutic jurisprudence, procedural justice, and restorative justice on the legal process. It considers all of these perspectives in the context of criminal justice system issues such as competency findings, the insanity defense, and sentencing. Demonstrating how the question of treatment of persons with mental disabilities in the criminal justice system is not only a vital one for both scholars and practitioners, but also a central facet of international human rights law, this book suggests policy development, further scholarly inquiries, and newly invigorated thinking and action to place dignity at the core of the criminal justice system.

The debate about whether mental health law should be abolished or reformed emerged during the negotiations of the Convention on the Right of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and has raged fiercely for over a decade. It has resulted in an impasse between abolitionists, States Parties, and other reformers and a literature which has devolved into 'camps'. Mental Health Law: Abolish or Reform? aims to break new ground by cutting through the confusion using the tools of human rights treaty interpretation backed by a deep jurisprudential analysis of core CRPD concepts - dignity (including autonomy), equality, and participation - to gain a clearer understanding of the meaning of the CRPD and what it requires States Parties to do. In doing so, it sets out the development of mental health law and is unique in tracing the history of the abolitionist movement and how nad why it has emerged now. By digging deeper into the conceptual basis of the CRPD and developing the 'interpretive compass' based on those three core CRPD concepts, the book aims to flesh out a broader vision of disability rights and move the debate forward by evaluating the three main abolition and reform options. Drawing on jurisprudential and multi-disciplinary research from philosophy, medicine, sociology, disability studies, and history, it argues compassionately and sensitively that mental health law should not be abolished, but should instead be significantly reformed to minimize coercion and maximize the support and choices given to persons with mental impairments to realize all of their CRPD rights.

The debate about whether mental health law should be abolished or reformed emerged during the negotiations of the Convention on the Right of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and has raged fiercely for over a decade. It has resulted in an impasse between abolitionists, States Parties, and other reformers and a literature which has devolved into 'camps'. Mental Health Law: Abolish or Reform? aims to break new ground by cutting through the confusion using the tools of human rights treaty interpretation backed by a deep jurisprudential analysis of core CRPD concepts - dignity (including autonomy), equality, and participation - to gain a clearer understanding of the meaning of the CRPD and what it requires States Parties to do. In doing so, it sets out the development of mental health law and is unique in tracing the history of the abolitionist movement and how nad why it has emerged now. By digging deeper into the conceptual basis of the CRPD and developing the 'interpretive compass' based on those three core CRPD concepts, the book aims to flesh out a broader vision of disability rights and move the debate forward by evaluating the three main abolition and reform options. Drawing on jurisprudential and multi-disciplinary research from philosophy, medicine, sociology, disability studies, and history, it argues compassionately and sensitively that mental health law should not be abolished, but should instead be significantly reformed to minimize coercion and maximize the support and choices given to persons with mental impairments to realize all of their CRPD rights.

Ten years have passed since the Mental Health Act (MHA) 2007 came into force in England. An amending statute, the Act reformed the MHA 1983 and reshaped the law governing the compulsory care and treatment of people suffering from mental disorders. Primarily driven by concerns about risk, it sought to remove legalistic obstacles to civil commitment and extend the law's coercive reach into the community. At the time of its introduction, the 2007 Act was written off as a retrograde step and a missed opportunity for radical, rights-focused reform. Despite this, little attention has been paid to its impact in the years since. Published to coincide with the tenth anniversary of the 2007 Act, this book offers a timely evaluation of mental health law and policy in England. It argues that the current MHA defies easy categorisation within any of the descriptive models which have customarily narrated the mechanics of civil commitment, namely 'legalism', 'new legalism', and 'medicalism'. It therefore makes the case for a new model – new medicalism – to account for the 2007 Act's enhancement of the discretion of mental health professionals for the express purposes of facilitating the management of situations of risk. In doing so, the book: critically examines the problems inherent in civil commitment frameworks organised around the concept of risk; explores the theoretical foundations of new medicalism; considers the challenges facing proponents of future reform in the era of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; and, reflects on the 2007 Act's practical impact.