skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 158352 Find in a Library
Title: Heller v. Doe: Denying Equal Protection to the Mentally Retarded
Journal: New England Journal on Criminal and Civil Confinement  Volume:21  Issue:2  Dated:(Summer 1995)  Pages:437-462
Author(s): H A Boyden
Date Published: 1995
Page Count: 26
Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: In the case of Heller v. Doe, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that persons facing involuntary civil commitment can be treated differently, depending on whether the person is mentally retarded or mentally ill, and upheld a Kentucky statute which imposed a higher burden of proof for involuntary commitment of a person who was alleged to be mentally ill than for a person who was alleged to be mentally retarded.
Abstract: Kentucky uses a "clear and convincing" standard in commitment proceedings for the mentally retarded, while a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard is used in commitment proceedings for the mentally ill. The author challenges the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, as well as the belief that mental retardation is easier to diagnose than mental illness and that the mentally retarded should have fewer constitutional rights than the mentally ill. She also contends that the U.S. Supreme Court should have struck down the Kentucky statute on the basis of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Her conclusions are based on burden of proof required for involuntary commitment, level of difficulty in mental health diagnoses, proof of dangerousness, treatment methods, and strict scrutiny review. 202 footnotes
Main Term(s): Juveniles
Index Term(s): Civil commitment; Constitutional Rights/Civil Liberties; Equal Protection; Kentucky; Mentally ill offenders; Offenders with Intellectual or Developmental Disabilities; State laws; US Supreme Court decisions
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.