Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:13:24.069Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dangerousness and mental health treatment: civil commitment in the USA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Michael J. Vitacco  and
James Degroot
Michael J. Vitacco
Affiliation:
Georgia Regents University, Georgia, USA, email [email protected] East Central Regional Hospital, Augusta, Georgia, USA
James Degroot
Affiliation:
Georgia Regents University, Georgia, USA, email [email protected] Georgia Department of Corrections, Forsyth, Georgia, USA
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Civil commitment standards in the USA have undergone dramatic changes over the past 50 years. The relevant statutes have largely focused on treatment, but how this treatment has been administered and the placement of individuals undergoing commitment have been dynamic. There have also been changes in commitment as it relates to sexual offenders and individuals deemed not competent to proceed to trial. As legislatures strive to find a balance between mandated treatment and civil liberties, changing standards of commitment provide opportunities for scholarship and research.

Type
Mental Health Law Profiles
Information
International Psychiatry , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , May 2013 , pp. 40 - 42
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits noncommercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists 2013

References

Appelbaum, P. (2005) Assessing Kendra's law: five years of outpatient commitment in New York. Law and Psychiatry, 56, 791–792.Google Scholar
Elbogen, E. B. & Johnson, S. C. (2009) The intricate link between violence and mental disorder. Results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Archives of General Psychiatry, 66, 152–161.Google Scholar
Erickson, S., Vitacco, M. & VanRybroek, G. (2005) Beyond overt violence: Wisconsin's progressive civil commitment statute as a marker of a new era in mental health law. Marquette Law Review, 89, 359.Google Scholar
Hoge, S. (2010) Commentary. Resistance to Jackson v. Indiana - civil commitment of defendants who cannot be restored to competence. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 38, 359–364 Google Scholar
Pfeffer, A. (2008) ‘Imminent danger’ and inconsistency: the need for national reform of the ‘imminent danger’ standard for involuntary civil commitment in the wake of the Virginia Tech tragedy. Cardozo Law Review, 30, 277–315.Google Scholar
Winter, M. (2012) Loughner loses appeal to halt forced medication. USA Today, 5 March.Google Scholar
Addington v. Texas, 441, U.S. 418 (1979)Google Scholar
Baxstrom v. R. E. Herold, 383 U.S. 107 (1966)Google Scholar
Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972)Google Scholar
Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407 (2002)Google Scholar
Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997)Google Scholar
Lessard v. Schmidt, 349 F. Supp. 1078 (E.D. Wis. 1972)Google Scholar
O'Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975)Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.