Washington sò͘ Harper àn
Washington sòo Harper àn, 494 U.S. 210 (1990) (ing-gú: Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (1990)), sī Bí-kok tsuè-ko huat-īnn ê tsi̍t-khí àn-kiânn, kî-tiong tsi̍t-ê hông kam-kìm ê siû-huān tio̍h hui tsū-guān iōng-io̍h būn-tê khí-sòo Washington tsiu, tik-pia̍t sī khòng tsing-sîn io̍h-bu̍t.[1]
| Washington sòo Harper àn | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued October 11, 1989 Decided February 27, 1990 | |
| Full case name | Washington, et al., Petitioners v. Walter Harper |
| Citations |
494 U.S. 210 (more) 110 S. Ct. 1028; 108 L. Ed. 2d 178; 1990 U.S. LEXIS 1174; 58 U.S.L.W. 4249 |
| Holding | |
| The Due Process Clause permits a state to treat an incarcerated inmate having a serious mental disorder with antipsychotic medication against his will, under the condition that he is dangerous to himself or others and the medication prescribed is in his best medical interest. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Kennedy, joined by unanimous (part II); Rehnquist, White, Blackmun, O'Connor, Scalia (parts I, III, IV, V) |
| Concurrence | Blackmun |
| Concur/dissent | Stevens, joined by Brennan, Marshall |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. XIV | |
Puē-kíng siu-kái
Walter Harper uì 1976-nî í-lâi it-ti̍t sī Washington kam-ga̍k hē-thóng ê tsi̍t-ê siû-huān; kin-kì pò-tō, Harper teh bī ho̍k-iōng khòng tsing-sîn io̍h-bu̍t ê sî-tsūn ē piáu-hiān tshut pō-li̍k hîng-uî. Harper pat nn̄g-piàn hông tsuán-î kàu ti̍k-sû tsuē-huān tiong-sim (SOC); tse-sī tsi̍t-ê kuan-ah hông tsing-tuan tshut–lâi ū tsing-sîn pēnn-tsìng ê siû-huān tsi kok-ka ki-kòo. Teh hia hia Harper pī-pik uî-puē ka-kī ê ì-guān lâi ho̍k-iōng tsing-sîn io̍h-bu̍t. SOC tsun-sûn i-ê ki-kòo sím-tsa tsìng-tshik tsō-tshut kiông-tsè siû-huān ho̍k-io̍h ê kuat-tīng.[1]
Harper teh tiong-sim tē-2 pái tuā-hīnn liáu-āu, Harper kin-kì 42 U.S.C. hiòng tsiu huat-īnn thê-khí sòo-siōng. 1983-nî, tsí-khòng tsit-ê tiong-sim hui tsū-guān tuì i tsìn-hîng io̍h-bu̍t tī-liâu tsìn-tsîng bē-tàng thê-kiong su-huat thiann-tsìng-huē; tsū-án-ne uî-huán tē-14 tiâu siu-tsìng-ànê tsìng-tong tîng-sū tiâu-khuán. Tshoo-sím huat-īnn pok-huê Harper ê sin-sòo; m̄-kuh tsiu tsuè-ko huat-īnn thui-huan guân-phuànn pīng-tshiánn kā àn-kiânn huat-huê tshoo-sím huat-īnn. Hām siann-bîng kan-na teh su-huat thiann-tsìng-huē tíng-kuân, tsit-ê siû-huān ū tshiong-hun tuì-khòng sìng tîng-sū pó-hōo; lî-tshiánn kok-ka ē-tàng thong-kuè “bîng-khak, ū-la̍t kah [494 U.S. 210, 211] lîng-jîn sìn-ho̍k ê” tsìng-kù tsìng-bîng kiông-tsè io̍h-bu̍t tuì tshiok-tsìn tiōng-iàu ê kok-ka lī-ik sī pit-iàu hām ū-hāu ê, kuân-hîng kò-jîn ê lī-ik hām kok-ka ê lī-ik.[1][2]
Bí-kok tsuè-ko huat-īnn siū-ú tiàukuàn-līn g(Writ of Certiorari).[3] Bí-kok sim-lí ha̍k-huē thê-kau tsi̍t-hūn “huâ-ting tsi iú kán-pò” (amicus brief) í-lâi tsi-tshî siû-huān hi̍k-tik tsìng-tong tîng-sū thiann-tsìng-huē ê kuân-lī, tsí-tshut tuì tsi̍t-ê hông kam-kìm ê siû-huān tsìn-hîng kiông-tsè io̍h-bu̍t tī-liâu sī uî-huán Bí-kok hiàn-huat ê tsìng-tong tîng-sū, pîng-tíng pó-hōo kah giân-lūn tsū-iû ê tiâu-khuán.[4]
Huat-īnn ì-kiàn siu-kái
Huat-īnn thui-huan phuànn-kuat, jīm-uî kin-kì "2Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987)" lāi-té thê-hiân ê khah-ke ê sím-tsa piau-tsún, teh pún-àn tang-tiong sú-iōng lāi-pōo ki-kòo sím-tsa ū-kàu-thang tsō-tshut tī-liâu ê kuat-tīng.
Bí-kok tsuè-ko huat-īnn tshâi-tīng, "tsìng-tong tîng-sū tiâu-khuán" (Due Process Clause) un-tsún tsi̍t-ê tsiu ē-tàng uî-puē siû-huān ê ì-guān sú-iōng khòng tsing-sîn io̍h-bu̍t lâi tī-liâu huān-iú giâm-tiōng tsing-sîn tsiòng-gāi koh-hông hông kam-kìm ê siû-huān; tiâu-kiānn sī siû-huān tuì ka-kī hi̍k-tsiá thann-jîn kòo-sîng huî-hiám pīng-tshiánn lî-tshiánn sóo khui ê io̍h-bu̍t sī tuì siû-huān kū-iú siōng-hó ê i̍k-ha̍k lī-ik.[1]
Tsù-kái siu-kái
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (1990).
- ↑ Gary, Melton (1997). Psychological Evaluations for the Courts: A Handbook for Mental Health Professionals and Lawyers (2nd pán.). New York: The Guilford Press. pp. 134, 350–351. ISBN 978-1-57230-236-5.
- ↑ "Washington' et al., Petitioners v. Walter Harper". 2007-10-10 khòaⁿ--ê.
- ↑ "Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210". American Psychological Association. 2007-10-10 khòaⁿ--ê.
Ên-sin ua̍t-to̍k siu-kái
- Mclearen, Alix M.; Ryba, Nancy L. (2003). "Identifying Severely Mentally Ill Inmates: Can Small Jails Comply with Detection Standards?". Journal of Offender Rehabilitation. 37 (1): 25–40. doi:10.1300/J076v37n01_03.
Tsham-ua̍t siu-kái
- Riggins sò͘ Nevada àn, 504 U.S. 127 (1992) (Riggins sòo Nevada àn)
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 494
- United States Reports
- Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Guā-pōo liân-kiat siu-kái
Wikisource ū koan-hē Washington v. Harper ê goân-sú bûn-jī.- Text of Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (1990) is available from: Findlaw Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
- Forced Medication of Legally Incompetent Prisoners: A Primer Archived 2008-09-07 at the Wayback Machine.
