Is it legal to hold a person against their wishes in this country and for how long and under what circumstances? Can you torture them while you have them under your control? What is the best excuse for doing this? Who are the people that can legally do this and what gives them this right under the United States Constitution?
2006-09-13 02:37:28 · 16 answers · asked by Friend 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
"If...considered mentally unstable & a danger to themselves or others they can be hospitalized for psychiatric evaluation ...a family member or spouse has the right... why would a family member have the right to do this? "...person committed a crime...Same thing for dangerous mentally ill people". How is it the same, you don't have to commit any crime to be locked up as mentally ill someone has to not like what you are doing or want control over you or your assets? "...Terrorists ..spies...are...taken care of outside the legal system". If you did this to the systems terrorist and spies you would get into trouble in a hurry. "Try taking the american government to court for human rights abuses and see what happens". "The length of time depends on what they were tried and convicted for..." in a civil court you don't have to be tried.
2006-09-13 03:43:16 · update #1
"If...considered mentally unstable & a danger to themselves or others they can be hospitalized for psychiatric evaluation ...a family member or spouse has the right... why would a family member have the right to do this? "...person committed a crime...Same thing for dangerous mentally ill people". How is it the same, you don't have to commit any crime to be locked up as mentally ill someone has to not like what you are doing or want control over you or your assets? "...Terrorists ..spies...are...taken care of outside the legal system". If you did this to the systems terrorist and spies you would get into trouble in a hurry. "Try taking the american government to court for human rights abuses and see what happens". "The length of time depends on what they were tried and convicted for..." in a civil court you don't have to be tried.
2006-09-13 03:49:26 · update #2
"The length of time depends on what they were tried and convicted for...you can be detained...without legal representation under suspicious pretence...It isn't legal to torchure anyone within the U.S., even by legal authorities. Federal, state, and local municiple-law authorities (police and legal authorities (such as a judge) have the right...to hold you against your will and wishes. The laws...are dependent on a variety of laws. Why a person is held against their will and for how long, is dependent on...the laws within the area that they did not comply...Who has the right? Only authorities that are granted the ability to do this...There is also the dependency of legal respresentation and the provision of proof". Does any one really know how a civil court acts?
2006-09-13 03:57:27 · update #3
"kidnapping n. the taking of a person against his/her will...from one place to another under circumstances in which the person so taken does not have freedom of movement, will, or decision through violence, force, threat or intimidation. Although it is not necessary that the purpose be criminal...the capture usually involves some related...act such as holding the person for...sexual and/or sadistic abuse...It includes taking due to irresistible impulse...An included crime is false imprisonment. Any harm to the victim...can raise the degree of...the injury...Originally it meant the stealing of children...but now applies to adults as well".
2006-09-13 04:01:56 · update #4
Yes, see Baker Act
http://www.psychlaws.org/PressRoom/faqonbakeract.htm
2006-09-13 02:39:33 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
1. This person committed a crime and is sentenced to jail. I don't think this needs more explanation. Same thing for dangerous mentally ill people. In both cases I think torture is prohibited.
2. Possible terrorists, foreign spies, etc. This kind of people are usually taken care of outside the legal system. This is not a new thing, just think what was done to most of the Russian spies they found round the 1960's. I think that's perfectly OK that a country defends itself and except for our enemies, nobody wins something by prosecuting them within the legal system. I don't really mind if these people are stopped with the help of torture. If they don't like the risk they should have found a decent profession.
2006-09-13 02:43:01 · answer #2 · answered by Vage Centurian 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, it is legal to hold someone against their will if they are an adult in this country. For what length of time, best excuse, torchure, and who under the U.S. Consitution?
The length of time depends on what they were tried and convicted for in a court of law-you can be detained for up to a day without legal representation under suspicious pretence. The best excuse would be for murder. It isn't legal to torchure anyone within the U.S., even by legal authorities. Federal, state, and local municiple-law authorities (police and legal authorities (such as a judge) have the right, under local, state and federal laws to hold you against your will and wishes. The laws that govern the rights for these individuals/institutions/authorities to do this, are dependent on a variety of laws. Why a person is held against their will and for how long, is dependent on what they did and the laws within the area that they did not comply.
Who has the right? Only authorities that are granted the ability to do this, by law.
There is also the dependency of legal respresentation and the provision of proof.
2006-09-13 02:47:14 · answer #3 · answered by What, what, what?? 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, no, and no.
kidnapping n. the taking of a person against his/her will (or from the control of a parent or guardian) from one place to another under circumstances in which the person so taken does not have freedom of movement, will, or decision through violence, force, threat or intimidation. Although it is not necessary that the purpose be criminal (since all kidnapping is a criminal felony) the capture usually involves some related criminal act such as holding the person for ransom, sexual and/or sadistic abuse, or rape. It includes taking due to irresistible impulse and a parent taking and hiding a child in violation of court order. An included crime is false imprisonment. Any harm to the victim coupled with kidnapping can raise the degree of felony for the injury and can result in a capital (death penalty) offense in some states, even though the victim survives. Originally it meant the stealing of children, since "kid" is child in Scandinavian languages, but now applies to adults as well.
2006-09-13 02:51:33 · answer #4 · answered by Zelda 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If they are considered mentally unstable & a danger to themselves or others they can be hospitalized for psychiatric evaluation - I believe a family member or spouse has the right to this, and they can be held for 24-48 hours, I have heard, in some states.
2006-09-13 02:41:25 · answer #5 · answered by mustanglynnie 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No one can do it legally, morally or otherwise,,,the only time you can even detain a person against their will is if you've called the police and you are simply holding a perpetrator for arrest by the police,,,but even then,,more times than not,,,you will be charged with a crime,,,,but if it is the police holding you,,,in most states , they have to charge you or release you within 24 hours,,,,however,,,if you ARE charged ,,,you can be held indefinately
2006-09-13 02:40:53 · answer #6 · answered by Dr. Biker 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes ,its called jail or prison . how long they are sentenced but most do not do the entire time , torture well no but they can give severe correction heck the others may beat ,rape, you so why do the guards, excuse the committed a crime that does does agree with the laws , who the police and citizens who tell they have had a crime committed against them
2006-09-13 02:55:44 · answer #7 · answered by cozjeanda 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Guantanamo Bay...
Try taking the american government to court for human rights abuses and see what happens.
2006-09-13 02:45:50 · answer #8 · answered by googlywotsit 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Society and the criminal equipment shouldn't specify who we are able to love and reproduce with. the outcomes of heavily appropriate persons having little ones by incest are excess of blown, and the probability of delivery defects isn't critically extra beneficial than that for 2 unrelated persons. in lots of households brother/sister incest happens positioned up puberty as area of intercourse experimentation. If those couples proceed to be in love as adults, why would desire to we cut back their option to marry?
2016-12-12 07:40:36 · answer #9 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think over the past 10 years, the united states has redefined the term legal - once we know what legal means then I think we can start to answer your question.
2006-09-13 02:38:58 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋