Developments in the Law: Civil Commitment of the Mentally Ill

1974 ◽  
Vol 87 (6) ◽  
pp. 1190 ◽  
1981 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 403-421 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert D. Miller ◽  
Paul B. Fiddleman

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.


1987 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 433-454 ◽  
Author(s):  
Virginia Aldigé Hiday ◽  
Lynn Newhart Smith

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.


2012 ◽  
pp. 344-352
Author(s):  
Kerry J. Breen ◽  
Stephen M. Cordner ◽  
Colin J. H. Thomson ◽  
Vernon D. Plueckhahn
Keyword(s):  

1962 ◽  
Vol 75 (6) ◽  
pp. 1252
Author(s):  
William J. Curran ◽  
Frank T. Lindman ◽  
Donald M. McIntyre

JAMA ◽  
1980 ◽  
Vol 243 (18) ◽  
pp. 1807b-1807
Author(s):  
G. M. Solan

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document