Toward a Conceptual Framework for Assessing Police Power Commitment Legislation: A Critique of Schopp’s and Winick’s Explications of Legal Mental Illness

I. Introduction II. Choosing a Conceptual Framework ... A. Broad vs. Narrow Explicandum ... B. Individual Rights/Status vs. State Interest Analysis ... C. The Role of Medical and Social Scientific Discourse III. Evaluating the Conceptual Frameworks ... A. How Well Does the Framework Focus on Police Power Commitments Rather Than Parens Patriae Commitments? ... B. Explaining Gaps and Overlaps ... C. Evaluating the Role of Medical and Behavioral Science ... D. Tracing the Consequences of a Diminished Individual Rights/Status Approach vs. an Enhanced State Interests Approach IV. Winick: Therapeutic Appropriateness and Parens Patriae ... A. Introduction ... B. The Strong and Weak Versions of Winick’s Therapeutic Appropriateness Principle ... C. Functional Impairment Criteria and Parens Patriae Commitments ... D. The Strong Version Entails the High Level Adoption of Medical Discourse ... E. Therapeutic Appropriateness, Parens Patriae, and the Bounds of Police Power Commitments ... F. Conclusion V. Schopp: Deriving Police Power Limits From Mental Status ... A. Schopp’s Choice of Explicandum ... B. Levels of Discourse and the Law-Science Linkage … C. Legal Mental Illness as Incompetence in a Particular Context ... D. The Health Care/Social Control Distinction: What Is Their Relationship? ... E. Autonomy, Mental Competency, and the Limits on Social Control: Do Some People Have a Diminished Right to Be Treated as Persons? VI. Conclusion