A law allowing people with developmental disabilities to be committed involuntarily without any conviction of wrongdoing is constitutional, the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled late last week.
The ruling affirms a 2005 law known as the Developmental Disabilities Court-Ordered Custody Act, which gave the state the authority to place those with developmental disabilities in mental hospitals if they are determined to be dangerous.
The law was challenged by a resident with an IQ of 62 who was committed by the state. In the case, attorneys for the individual, identified as C.R., argued that the law was unconstitutional since it does not require the state to prove at trial that a person is likely to do something threatening in the future.
On Friday, however, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of involuntary commitments saying that the level of proof currently required of the state is sufficient. Specifically, the court cited a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allows for a lesser standard when committing those with intellectual disability as opposed to people with mental illness.
I trust this will be challenged under Title II…
WELL SLAVERY USE TO BE CONSIDERED CONSTITUTIONAL TOO, BUT IT IS NOT NOW. THIS CAN BE CHANGED.
IF IT WERE ANY OTHER MINORITY GROUP PEOPLE WOULD (AND HAVE ) PROTESTED IN THE STREETS. BUT BECAUSE MANY OF US ARE IN GENERAL FINANTIALLY DEPENDANT WE CAN BE WARE HOUSED IN STATE SCHOOLS, NURSING HOMES AND WHERE EVER. ALL ANY ONE HAS TO SAY IS “IN THE FUTURE THEY MIGHT HURT THEM SELFS ” IF THIS IS THE CRITERIA THEN EVERYONE SHOULD BE INSTIUTIONALIZED,
I THOUGHT INICENT UNTILL PROVEN GUILTY APPLIED TO ALL AMERICANS NOT JUST CRIMINALS.
Regretably this is what happens when this sort of suit in brought in state vs federal courts. If the attourney does not seek federal releif the person named is stuck in a psychiatric setting at like $250K per year.
Why did the attourney not file breif or motion naming Olmstead v LC & EW specifically?