7919 research outputs found
Sort by
MORE EASILY FACILITATING INVOLUNTARY TREATMENT: THE IMPACTS OF SENATE BILL 43 ON THE INTERSECTION OF MENTAL ILLNESS AND HOMELESSNESS IN CALIFORNIA
Full text linkMental health and homelessness are two of the most prominent matters affecting California. The Legislature has attempted to combat the issues stemming from these concerns through various forms of legislation. Despite legislative efforts, the intersection between mental illness and homelessness continues to present further challenges. California Senate Bill 43 (SB-43) sets out to address the mental health crisis by modernizing California’s laws handling behavioral health, specifically for individuals living on the streets.
This Note analyzes the impact of SB-43 on California’s mental health system and individuals. SB-43 expands the legal definition of “gravely disabled” to include individuals who fit the Bill’s requirements for mental health and severe substance use disorders. Additionally, SB-43 provides that expert witness statements in medical records will not be made inadmissible in court under the hearsay rule. Lastly, the Bill increases the reporting requirements to align with the new definition of “gravely disabled” to provide more clarity within the system.
SB-43 poses significant problems that undermine its goals of combating rising rates of mental health issues, substance abuse, and homelessness. SB-43 risks creating a conservatorship pipeline by providing greater possibility for unnecessary institutionalization. In addition, implementation of SB-43 has stalled in most counties due to lack of infrastructure, funding gaps, and opposition. This Note proposes numerous changes to SB-43 including setting clearer criteria, requiring past or present adverse effects to limit subjectivity, eliminating the hearsay exception, and incorporating community-defined programs. SB-43 has the potential to break the cycle of repeated crises including arrest and imprisonment, psychiatric hospitalization for mental illnesses, homelessness, and premature death. However, amendments are necessary for SB-43 to reach successful statewide adoption and to achieve the Bill’s life-saving potential
TikTok v. Anderson
Full text linkAPPLICATION TO THE HON. SAMUEL A. ALITO, JR. FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TO FILE A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUI
MODELING MEANING: CAUSAL INFERENCE UNDER THE CALIFORNIA RACIAL JUSTICE ACT
Full text linkIn order to evaluate claims arising under the California Racial Justice Act (RJA), judges and attorneys need to learn how to draw inferences about racial disparity from data—and, equally importantly, to learn how to avoid drawing inaccurate inferences from data. The key questions in many RJA claims are, first, how to determine what constitutes “defendant[s] who have engaged in similar conduct and are similarly situated” and, second, what might supply race-neutral reasons for those disparities. In other words, how can practitioners learn to distinguish between permissible disparities driven by offender characteristics and conduct and impermissible disparities driven by factors the RJA seeks to eliminate: implicit bias, explicit bias, and structural factors?
This Article seeks to provide judges and attorneys with such a guide. It proceeds in three parts. First, any inferences drawn from data depend on how one models the real world. Judges and attorneys need to ask about these real-world models and treat them like any other evidence, evaluating them for their plausibility, coherence, and so on. Second, the Article explores two simple real-world models: one that is race-inflected, where system actors’ treatment of race explains any observed racial disparities, and another, where any disparities are the result of real-world racial differences in offender characteristics and conduct. Courts use both of these models to explain the data. The question, then, is which model is more plausible. Third, given that causal inference requires a model, I discuss the dangers of not making these models explicit. Particularly with models that assert real-world racial differences, there is a risk that eugenic tropes, particularly of blackness and criminality, will fill the gap. If the RJA is to succeed in eliminating racial bias, courts must begin by explicitly evaluating the models used in causal inference
MEDICAL DEVICE STERILIZATION AS A PUBLIC HEALTH PARADOX
Full text linkMedical device sterilization processes are a public health paradox. Sterility is necessary to assure product safety, yet emissions from the most common form of industrial sterilization, ethylene oxide (EtO), cause cancer. The connection between ethylene oxide and health risks has existed for decades, though recent litigation, state legislation, and advocacy efforts have illuminated the risks. This Article explores the large-scale EtO emissions in Willowbrook, Illinois caused by a facility run by Sterigenics, a corporate entity with facilities across the United States. The Sterigenics case study will be utilized to examine the scope of adverse health and environmental effects; the local, state, and federal agencies and entities involved; the ensuing advocacy, community engagement, and litigation; state legislative responses; and opportunities for coordination to ensure responsive environmental and public health regulation and policy. This Article will identify significant gaps in regulation, controls, and reporting, and question whether federal regulatory agencies may rely on existing legislation and regulation or should implement new mechanisms to enhance protections and support technological advancements in emissions controls