Ethics of Applying Compulsory Treatment as a Preventive Measure in Criminal Law
Abstract
The research discusses the debatable issue of the use of compulsory medical treatment (CMT) as a preventive measure in criminal law. CMT are measures of coercion, or more particularly, state coercion, as they are applied by state bodies on behalf of the public and are backed by the coercive power of the state. However, CMT are not a measure of responsibility. Nor are they preventive measures. The latter are an independent form of legal coercion. CMT is a preventive measure, the use of which prevents the possibility of an unlawful act without establishing guilt, i.e. assessment of the violation in terms of punishment. It is concluded that since the content of the notion of CMT can be filled with different meanings and cannot be uniquely correct and meets all the requirements of science, it must have incomplete attribution in the criminal law, which must be formal. The presentation of the author’s vision of the definition of ‘compulsory medical measures’ is preceded by the following remark. Since the content of the concept of CMT can be filled with different meanings and cannot be uniquely correct and meets all the requirements of science, so long as it should have incomplete attribution in the criminal law, be only formal. It is fundamentally impossible to encompass the general concept of CMT in the law, because it would be necessary to cite all possible definitions in this normative source. The proposed definition of CMT is only an attempt from some unusual positions to understand the essence of such a complex legal institution. And since we have defined CMT as preventive measures in criminal law, such an interpretation, in our opinion, provides an explanation for many theoretical and practical issues.
References
[2] Bignold, L.P. 2019. Chapter 20: Costs, ethics, and malpractice litigation. ‚Principles of Tumors’. Second Edition, Academic Press, 473-94.
[3] Geppert, C.M.A., and M.P. Bogenschutz. 2009. Ethics in Substance Use Disorder Treatment. Psychiatric Clinics of North America 32(2): 283-97.
[4] Grahn, R., L.M. Lundgren, D. Chassler, and M. Padyab. 2018. Repeated entries to the Swedish addiction compulsory care system: A national register database study. Evaluation and Program Planning 49: 163-71.
[5] Kalinina, T.M. 2009. Prinuditelnye mery medicinskogo haraktera: mery gosudarstvennogo prinuzhdeniya ili mery bezopasnosti [Mandatory measures of medical nature: measures of state coercion or security measures?]. Aktualnye problemy rossijskogo prava [Actual problems of Russian law] 1(10): 342-8.
[6] Kennedy, S.I. 2018. Deprivation of liberty in medical practice. Medicine 46(7): 411-3.
[7] Kirillova, E.A., V.V. Bogdan, E.S. Ustinovich, Y.O. Pronina, and O.A. Kovaleva. 2018. Public interest and privacy: The right to privacy in the cover-age of events by the mass media. International Journal of Engineering and Technology 7(4): 239-43.
[8] Lundahl, A., G. Helgesson, and N. Juth. 2018. Psychiatrists' motives for practising in-patient compulsory care of patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD). International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 58: 63-71.
[9] Miheev, R.I., A.V. Belovodskij, V.A. Vorobej, and O.R. Miheev. 2000. Prinuditelnye mery medicinskogo haraktera v ugolovnom prave – socialno-pravovye i mediko-reabilitacionnye mery bezopasnosti. Vladivostok.
[10] Opitz-Welke, A., and N. Konrad. 2019. Psychiatric approach to violent behavior in severe mental illness – Violation of human rights? Ethics, Medicine and Public Health 8: 127-31.
[11] Owen, G.S., B.W.J. Spencer, and R.A.A. Kanaan. 2016. The legal and ethical framework for compulsory psychiatric treatment. Medicine 44(12): 734-6.
[12] Owen, G.S., and R.A.A. Kanaan. 2008. The legal and ethical framework for psychiatry. Medicine 36(8): 391-2.
[13] Sheveleva, S.V. 2011. Uslovnoe osuzhdenie kak preventivnaya mera v ugolovnom zakonodatelstve, Rossijskaya yusticiya 4: 17-19.
The Copyright Transfer Form to ASERS Publishing (The Publisher)
This form refers to the manuscript, which an author(s) was accepted for publication and was signed by all the authors.
The undersigned Author(s) of the above-mentioned Paper here transfer any and all copyright-rights in and to The Paper to The Publisher. The Author(s) warrants that The Paper is based on their original work and that the undersigned has the power and authority to make and execute this assignment. It is the author's responsibility to obtain written permission to quote material that has been previously published in any form. The Publisher recognizes the retained rights noted below and grants to the above authors and employers for whom the work performed royalty-free permission to reuse their materials below. Authors may reuse all or portions of the above Paper in other works, excepting the publication of the paper in the same form. Authors may reproduce or authorize others to reproduce the above Paper for the Author's personal use or for internal company use, provided that the source and The Publisher copyright notice are mentioned, that the copies are not used in any way that implies The Publisher endorsement of a product or service of an employer, and that the copies are not offered for sale as such. Authors are permitted to grant third party requests for reprinting, republishing or other types of reuse. The Authors may make limited distribution of all or portions of the above Paper prior to publication if they inform The Publisher of the nature and extent of such limited distribution prior there to. Authors retain all proprietary rights in any process, procedure, or article of manufacture described in The Paper. This agreement becomes null and void if and only if the above paper is not accepted and published by The Publisher, or is with drawn by the author(s) before acceptance by the Publisher.