Effects of the Dangerousness Standard in Civil Commitment

1987 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 433-454 ◽  
Author(s):  
Virginia Aldigé Hiday ◽  
Lynn Newhart Smith
Keyword(s):  
Mentally Ill ◽  
Civil Commitment ◽  
Involuntary Hospitalization ◽  
Mental Hospitals ◽  
Dangerous Behavior ◽  
Behavioral Criteria

This study presents data from a large statewide sample of civil commitment respondents, which challenge beliefs about the deleterious effects of the dangerousness standard on the mentally ill and on mental hospitals. Using objective behavioral criteria, this study finds that the mentally ill brought into the civil commitment process and those committed by the courts to involuntary hospitalization are not limited to the violent, much less the violent to others. Their dangerousness is often toward self and is nonviolent. Many even have no allegations of dangerous behavior. Furthermore, most who are violent do not reach high levels of violence. Reasons for continuation of the beliefs that the dangerousness standard causes the abandonment of the nondangerous mentally ill and causes the filling of mental hospitals with the violent are discussed.

Police Handling of the Mentally Ill in Domestic Violence Situations

2002 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 278-307 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary A. Finn ◽  
Loretta J. Stalans
Keyword(s):  
Domestic Violence ◽  
Mental State ◽  
Police Officers ◽  
Mentally Ill ◽  
Civil Commitment ◽  
Mental Hospitals

This article provides a systematic test of the reasoning underlying officers' decisions to civilly commit or arrest hallucinating suspects of domestic violence. Police officers ( N = 257) read hypothetical scripts that manipulated three conditions (the suspect's mental state, antagonism or cooperativeness between disputants, and presence or absence of victim injury) and responded to questions about their inferences and responses. Findings indicate that mentally ill husbands were not more likely to be arrested, but officers who blamed the victim or held stereotypic views supportive of the use of violence were less likely to arrest. Police officers who believed that mental hospitals typically accepted violent persons, perceived that severe harm to the victim was likely if the suspect remained in the home, and regarded the suspect as cooperative with them were more likely to seek civil commitment.

The Least Restrictive Alternative to Involuntary Hospitalization, Outpatient Commitment: Its Use and Effectiveness

1982 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-96 ◽  
Author(s):  
Virginia Aldigé Hiday ◽  
Judge Rodney R. Goodman
Keyword(s):  
Success Rate ◽  
Mentally Ill ◽  
Outpatient Treatment ◽  
Civil Commitment ◽  
Time Frame ◽  
High Success Rate ◽  
Involuntary Hospitalization ◽  
Outpatient Commitment ◽  
Select Group ◽  
Least Restrictive Alternative

For two years, all court-ordered outpatient treatment in one civil commitment court was followed for the maximum time of an initial commitment, three months. Based on involuntary readmissions and involuntary commitments, outpatient commitment for the dangerously mentally ill was found to have a high success rate; only 12.5% of the respondents were involuntarily rehospitalized during the time frame. For the select group of respondents ordered to outpatient treatment by this court, outpatient commitment provided an effective, less restrictive alternative to involuntary hospitalization.

Do no harm in due process – a historical analysis of social determinates of institutionalization in the USA

2021 ◽  
pp. 0957154X2110346
Author(s):  
Tyler Durns
Keyword(s):  
Mentally Ill ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Psychiatric Treatment ◽  
Historical Analysis ◽  
Involuntary Hospitalization ◽  
Fundamental Function ◽  
Cultural Paradigms ◽  
Do No Harm ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Legislative Amendments

Involuntary hospitalization has been a fundamental function of psychiatric care for mentally ill persons in the USA for centuries. Procedural and judicial practices of inpatient psychiatric treatment and civil commitment in the USA have served as a by-product of socio-political pressures that demanded constant reform throughout history. The origin of modern commitment laws can best be understood through the lens of cultural paradigms that led to their creation and these suggest caution for future legislative amendments.

Civil Commitment

2019 ◽  
pp. 65-70
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Ford
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
Civil Commitment ◽  
Critical Factor ◽  
Individual Autonomy ◽  
Police Power ◽  
Involuntary Hospitalization ◽  
Legal Cases

Chapter 6 covers the major legal cases that have informed the laws governing the civil commitment – involuntary hospitalization – of individuals with mental illness. The cases highlight the evolution of the emphasis on dangerousness as a critical factor in decision-making and very clearly describe the tension between individual autonomy and police power. The cases included in this chapter are Lake v. Cameron, Baxstrom v. Herold, Lessard v. Schmidt, O’Connor v. Donaldson, Addington v. Texas, and a case involving children, Parham v. J.R.

The Adversary System in Civil Commitment of the Mentally Ill: Does it Exist, and Does it Work?

1981 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 403-421 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert D. Miller ◽  
Paul B. Fiddleman
Keyword(s):  
Mentally Ill ◽  
Civil Commitment ◽  
Full Time ◽  
Adversarial System ◽  
Clear Cut ◽  
Adversary System ◽  
Effective Representation

Legal activists have argued for adversary counsel to represent patients in civil commitment hearings, and many courts and legislatures have responded by requiring effective representation for patients. The authors argue that a truly adversarial system requires full-time attorneys representing both sides (commitment and release) with clear-cut roles for each attorney, and that such systems are generally not in use at this time.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document