Civil commitment from a systems perspective

Responsibility for the civil commitment process currently is shared between the justice and mental health systems. Neither system, however, owes substantial loyalty to the goals of civil commitment. The result, as documented in numerous empirical studies, is that the ostensible goals of the process are routinely subverted in favor of other systemic interests. Most reform efforts to date, focused on altering legal rules to conform to doctrinal desiderata, have ignored this problem, leading to uneven and disappointing outcomes. A systems perspective on these problems suggests that one means of dealing with systems whose loyalty to a task is questionable is to create an independent system with the incentives to give primacy to the task in question. The implications of this analysis for civil commitment are explored.     

Civil commitment and the criminal insanity plea in Israeli law

In Israeli jurisprudence there is a substantial difference towards mentally ill patients between the civil and penal law systems that goes well beyond differences required by their separate objectives. Mentally ill people dangerous to others due to their illness belong in the hospital, not in the community or in jail. The data gathered especially for this paper make it hard to escape the conclusion that contemporary practice in Israel does not accord with this objective. On the civil front, inaccuracy in predicting who is dangerous may lead to involuntary commitment of people who are not dangerous. On the criminal side, too few people are sent to the hospital in Israel and correspondingly too many to jail. Comparison with US data and practice shows that on the civil side prediction has been improved by using actuarial methods, while on the penal side more up to date definitions of mental illness have been adopted. Whatever the appropriate solution for Israel, surely the first requirement is recognition of the problem.     

Civil commitment to outpatient psychotherapy: a case study

Commitment to outpatient psychiatric treatment evolved in the courts to protect patients' right to freedom from compulsory hospitalization. This ruling has been criticized by the psychiatric profession, who prioritize treatment rather than liberty. The following case demonstrates the use of commitment as a therapeutic tool in the psychotherapy of a woman with severe borderline pathology. Although the use of coercion in psychotherapy is controversial, its potential use and its ramifications on transference and countertransference issues are discussed.     

Civil commitment by conservatorship: the workings of California's law

This article summarizes the conservatorship provisions of the California Civil Commitment Statute, the Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act and reviews the major findings from previous studies. By studying the hospital records of eighty-five gravely disabled patients affected by LPS, the authors address issues raised by these reports. The results indicate that the law's provisions work unevenly. Patients with acute and current disability received conservatorships more frequently than those who had been disabled in the past. There is some evidence that the process is used to confine threatening patients and does not function equally well for all diagnostic groups.     

Civil commitment in Turkey: reflections on a bill drafted by psychiatrists

Involuntary hospitalization of the mentally ill has been an issue that still remains outside the judicial system in Turkey. Despite the new Turkish Civil Code, which includes several articles relevant to involuntary psychiatric hospital admissions, there still appears to be a need for a comprehensive mental health law to address specific issues concerning civil commitment of the mentally ill. As a result of the lack of specific statutory regulation, an insufficient number of psychiatric hospital beds and limited appreciation of the safety risks involved in untreated mental illness, involuntary hospitalization remains an underutilized option by psychiatrists and the courts alike. In response to its concerned members, the Psychiatric Association of Turkey has appointed a task force to draft a proposed mental health law, entitled the "Psychiatric Patients' Bill of Rights." Although the draft suggests a model with emphasis on the right to psychiatric treatment, it also recommends close judicial oversight to prevent potential abuses of discretion by the system. However, this might present logistic problems in a country with already overburdened courts. Authors discuss the highlights of the draft within the context of Turkey's current cultural, social and judicial structure, and compare it to similar laws of other countries.