NCJ Number
170738
Journal
Advocate Volume: 18 Issue: 5 Dated: (September 1996) Pages: 4-16
Date Published
1996
Length
13 pages
Annotation
This article describes social forces that tend to dominate policy discussions about civil commitment, reviews basic types of civil commitment, identifies statutory standards that govern extended civil commitments, and presents the constitutional framework within which involuntary civil commitment should operate.
Abstract
A major problem in effectively addressing involuntary interventions, including civil commitment, is the fragile nature of the social consensus on which these interventions are based. Numerous positions more or less contribute to the policy mix that has produced current civil commitment schemes. These positions include the advocate's perspective, the medical model, the family model, the consumer model, fiscal conservatism, nihilism, and the idea of helping the helpless. Public concerns about safety and security in the context of civil commitment concern safe streets, violence and dangerousness, and the criminalization of mental illness. Basic types of civil commitment include informal, voluntary, third-party, short-term, extended, outpatient, and criminal commitment. With respect to criteria for civil commitment, every jurisdiction has at least one major standard based on dangerousness to self and others. Apart from basic commitment standards, the most common criteria involve alternatives to inpatient hospitalization. Constitutional issues relevant to civil commitment focus on the right to treatment, dangerousness, criminal commitment, the least restrictive alternative, the commitment of minors, informed consent, procedural due process, and equal protection. Constitutional principles fundamental to a sound civil commitment system and basic criteria for extended civil commitment are listed. 74 footnotes