Court based civil commitment of alcoholics and substance abusers.

Problem. To study court ordered substance abuse commitment (SAC) in one jurisdiction. We investigated who was evaluated, by whom, and with what outcome. Is SAC primarily a purely civil procedure as originally intended? Are men and women being treated equally? Method: Questionnaire survey of court clinicians to determine demographic and clinical status of persons evaluated, the process of evaluation, and the disposition. Results: SAC is common and more frequent in criminal cases than in purely civil ones. SAC of women is clearly influenced by the restricted choices for disposition: either state prison or an unlocked facility. Conclusions: SAC is an important public health procedure, which courts are using in highly variable and at times unintended ways. SAC has emerged as an alternative to other dispositions in criminal cases involving substance-abusing defendants.     

Outpatient civil commitment: a dangerous charade or a component of a comprehensive institution of civil commitment?

This article examines three criticisms frequently directed toward preventive commitment as one form of outpatient commitment. These criticisms contend that preventive commitment (a) abandons the dangerousness criteria for civil commitmnet, (b) promotes unwarranted inpatient commitment of those who do not meet civil commitment criteria, and (c) undermines important individual liberties by diluting the right to refuse treatment. Understanding and evaluating these criticisms requires analysis of the intersection among empirical, conceptual, and justificatory claims. According to the analysis presented here, advocates of preventive commitment can defend a legitimate role for preventive commitment. This analysis applies to preventive commitment as a dispositional alternative within a comprehensive institution of civil commitment involving distinct parens patriae and police power components.