Pros And Cons Of The Lantern-Petris Short Act

Lantern-Petris Short act

The Lantern-Petris Short (LPS) act is a California Affair that gives directions and guidelines on how to deal with involuntary civil commitments of people to organizations or institutions famous in mental health. An act is a combination of rules that have been passed by the Parliament (Zeng, 2014). The procedure is always that a bill is first proposed by members of the parliament in which it is discussed and debated upon which it may be considered as an Act or nullified. The LPS was brought on board by prominent people in the government of California states. The individuals were Frank Lanterman who was the state assembly member at that time and Nicholas C. Petris and Alan Short who were the state senators. Once introduced,

The alcoholics have impaired perceptions and may not have good judgmental skills. The mentioned groups have a disadvantage in one way or another and people may take advantage of their situation. They may be impeded to do something absurd out of their wish but because they do not have a sense of reason, they end up bowing to the demands given. It is cruel to take advantage of this people hence the reason why the action was brought on

The crisis may be among mentally disabled individuals and the other people in the community. The act illustrates the care to be given to the disadvantaged group. The civil rights for mentally ill patients are well explained and are required to be followed in reference the LPS act. The stated regulations are normally a judicial review that is used to settle disputes among the people in the society of California. The matters concerning involuntary commitment by the mentally ill persons have analyzed and steps or initiatives to be taken have been stated appropriately. In previous paragraphs, we mentioned that the act is used as a precedent. In law, precedents are laws or cases used to make a fair judgment and settle a crisis. The precedent is a former law that is used to make the judgment in the recent case (Durham, Carr, & Pierce, 1984).The judges, in this case, are allowed by law to make a decision based on what was there before therefore no biases or unfair judgment.

The Lantern Petris –Short Act is aimed at protecting civil rights of the Citizens of California. The act has no racial biases as it protects everyone so long as is a citizen of the California state. The bias is only in people with the disadvantages stated. During the start of the vision of the Act, a local program for mental health status was not well envisioned. Policies have however been put in place to ensure the programs are in