The Law’s Role in Ending the Suicide Crisis: Liability for Suicide Under the State-Created Danger Doctrine

Brittany White
{"title":"The Law’s Role in Ending the Suicide Crisis: Liability for Suicide Under the State-Created Danger Doctrine","authors":"Brittany White","doi":"10.25172/smulr.75.4.6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The mounting prevalence of suicides in the United States has translated into a full-fledged, nationwide suicide crisis, impacting the lives of far too many. Even if an individual is fortunate enough never to have directly endured the tragedy of losing a loved one to suicide, they have certainly been exposed to this crisis through ever-frequent media reports of suicides. Given the widespread and detrimental nature of this crisis, it is imperative that prompt action is taken by individuals and institutions across a multitude of disciplines, the law notwithstanding. Indeed, the force of law itself implies that certain faculties possessed by courts can be uniquely conducive to the fundamental goal of suicide prevention. Specifically, courts hold the power to impose liability upon individuals for their actionable wrongdoing; when imposed, the threat of future liability is thereby realized, which presumably operates to deter future instances of similar misconduct. However, where the threat of liability is far-fetched, the law’s deterrence value is likewise diminished. As such, only a legitimate threat of liability will produce the necessary incentives for individuals to prevent suicides and suicide-inducing conduct. The law’s state-created danger doctrine is critical because it supplies a legal basis for imposing liability upon governmental actors for certain instances of suicide. This Comment thus seeks to resolve a circuit split concerning the doctrine’s applicability to suicide. It suggests the manner in which courts should treat state-created danger claims involving suicides in light of both the doctrine’s history and modern psychiatric understandings of suicide. Ultimately, this Comment argues that where the requisite elements of a state-created danger claim have been satisfied, courts must not decline to find liability simply because the harm that ensued from the state-created danger was that of suicide rather than some harm inflicted by a third party.","PeriodicalId":80169,"journal":{"name":"SMU law review : a publication of Southern Methodist University School of Law","volume":"115 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SMU law review : a publication of Southern Methodist University School of Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25172/smulr.75.4.6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The mounting prevalence of suicides in the United States has translated into a full-fledged, nationwide suicide crisis, impacting the lives of far too many. Even if an individual is fortunate enough never to have directly endured the tragedy of losing a loved one to suicide, they have certainly been exposed to this crisis through ever-frequent media reports of suicides. Given the widespread and detrimental nature of this crisis, it is imperative that prompt action is taken by individuals and institutions across a multitude of disciplines, the law notwithstanding. Indeed, the force of law itself implies that certain faculties possessed by courts can be uniquely conducive to the fundamental goal of suicide prevention. Specifically, courts hold the power to impose liability upon individuals for their actionable wrongdoing; when imposed, the threat of future liability is thereby realized, which presumably operates to deter future instances of similar misconduct. However, where the threat of liability is far-fetched, the law’s deterrence value is likewise diminished. As such, only a legitimate threat of liability will produce the necessary incentives for individuals to prevent suicides and suicide-inducing conduct. The law’s state-created danger doctrine is critical because it supplies a legal basis for imposing liability upon governmental actors for certain instances of suicide. This Comment thus seeks to resolve a circuit split concerning the doctrine’s applicability to suicide. It suggests the manner in which courts should treat state-created danger claims involving suicides in light of both the doctrine’s history and modern psychiatric understandings of suicide. Ultimately, this Comment argues that where the requisite elements of a state-created danger claim have been satisfied, courts must not decline to find liability simply because the harm that ensued from the state-created danger was that of suicide rather than some harm inflicted by a third party.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
法律在结束自杀危机中的作用:国家制造危险学说下的自杀责任
美国自杀率的上升已经演变成一场全面的、全国性的自杀危机,影响了太多人的生活。即使一个人足够幸运,从来没有直接经历过失去亲人自杀的悲剧,他们也肯定会通过媒体频繁报道的自杀事件暴露在这种危机中。鉴于这场危机的广泛和有害性质,无论法律如何,各个学科的个人和机构都必须迅速采取行动。事实上,法律本身的力量意味着法院拥有的某些能力可以独特地有利于预防自杀的基本目标。具体来说,法院有权对个人可起诉的不法行为追究责任;一旦实施,未来责任的威胁就会实现,这可能是为了阻止今后发生类似的不当行为。然而,如果责任威胁是牵强附会的,法律的威慑价值同样会减弱。因此,只有合法的责任威胁才能对个人产生必要的激励,以防止自杀和诱发自杀的行为。该法律的国家制造危险原则至关重要,因为它为政府行为者在某些自杀事件中承担责任提供了法律依据。因此,本评论试图解决关于该学说是否适用于自杀的巡回分歧。它提出了法院应根据该原则的历史和现代精神病学对自杀的理解来处理涉及自杀的国家制造的危险索赔的方式。最后,本评论认为,在国家制造的危险索赔的必要要素得到满足的情况下,法院不能仅仅因为国家制造的危险所造成的伤害是自杀而不是由第三方造成的伤害而拒绝追究责任。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Pregnancy Risk and Coerced Interventions after Dobbs Using a “Bystander Bounty” to Encourage the Reporting of Workplace Sexual Harassment A Tribute for Professor Lowe The Promise of Abortion Pills: Evidence on the Safety and Effectiveness of Self-Managed Medication Abortion and Opportunities to Expand Access Fracture: Abortion Law and Politics After Dobbs
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1