Episode 23: Innovative Approaches to Mental Health Hearings
カートのアイテムが多すぎます
カートに追加できませんでした。
ウィッシュリストに追加できませんでした。
ほしい物リストの削除に失敗しました。
ポッドキャストのフォローに失敗しました
ポッドキャストのフォロー解除に失敗しました
Episode 23: Innovative Approaches to Mental Health Hearings
-
ナレーター：
-
著者：
このコンテンツについて
Rogers hearings allow Massachusetts judges to approve treatment plans for involuntarily committed individuals, but the process is criticized for its inefficiency and 99% approval rate. What if procedural reforms could improve outcomes? Replacing district court judges with administrative law judges to oversee hearings and substituting public defenders with mental health professionals as patient advocates could improve outcomes for both the involuntarily committed individuals and the courts—reducing delays, improving patient outcomes, and better utilizing court resources, according to HLS student Aarushi Solanki. She outlines the need for a randomized controlled trial to bring evidence to this proposal.
Read the corresponding blog post.
Speakers:
- Aarushi Solanki, J.D. candidate, Harvard Law School
- Joe Liberman, J.D. candidate, Harvard Law School
Resources mentioned:
- Rogers hearing
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli
- Vitek v. Jones
Share feedback and relevant topics you would like the A2J Lab to discuss: a2jlab@law.harvard.edu
Stay connected with the Access to Justice Lab:
- Email newsletter
- BlueSky
- YouTube
Support the A2J Lab
Proof Over Precedent cover art by Courtney Chrystal