{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014891179839633447, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.163934426229508, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Rethinking deprivations of liberty: possible contributions from therapeutic and ecological jurisprudence.

In place of the police and parens patriae powers, this article proposes three distinct justifactory models for government-sponsored deprivations of liberty. The punishment model authorizes deprivation of liberty as a sanction for blameworthy behavior. The prevention model authorizes deprivation of liberty to prevent harm, either through deterrence or restraint. The protection model authorizes liberty deprivation to ensure autonomous decisionmaking. The article compares these models to the purposes traditionally advanced as justification for punishment, and explores their strengths and weaknesses. Using therapeutic jurisprudence and ecological jurisprudence as organizing frameworks, it then describes a range of empirical issues raised by each of the models.