Risky Business Versus Overt Acts: What Relevance Do 'Actuarial', Probabilistic Risk Assessments Have for Judicial Decisions on Involuntary Psychiatric Hospitalization?

94 Pages Posted: 10 Jan 2011 Last revised: 16 Apr 2013

See all articles by Douglas Mossman

Douglas Mossman

University of Cincinnati College of Medicine

Allison H. Schwartz

Independent

Elise Lucas

University of Cincinnati - College of Law

Date Written: January 9, 2011

Abstract

Recently, several authors have suggested that only by incorporating findings from actuarial risk assessment instruments (ARAIs) can mental health experts provide evidence-based testimony in mental health commitment hearings. Determining eligibility for involuntary hospitalization seems like an appropriate, natural, obvious application of ARAIs. Similar instruments are used frequently in decision-making about sex offender commitments, where (as with mental health commitment) social policy ostensibly aims to protect the public from harmful acts by persons with mental abnormalities. Also, all evidence suggests that actuarial techniques for judging dangerousness are superior to other methods of assessing the risk of future violence.

Yet in many jurisdictions, case law or mental health commitment statutes require clear and convincing evidence showing that a respondent actually did something (that is, committed an “overt act”) that did or could have caused harm. Such requirements may preclude using probabilistic considerations about future behavior as the sole ground for a mental health commitment.

This article considers whether U.S. jurisdictions might allow mental health experts to use ARAIs as the primary evidence supporting their opinions in favor of involuntary psychiatric hospitalization. Our findings have important implications for the potential relevance of ARAIs in mental health commitment proceedings.

Keywords: civil commitment, mental health, actuarial risk assessment, involuntary psychiatric hospitalization

JEL Classification: C00, D81, K49

Suggested Citation

Mossman, Douglas and Schwartz, Allison H. and Lucas, Elise, Risky Business Versus Overt Acts: What Relevance Do 'Actuarial', Probabilistic Risk Assessments Have for Judicial Decisions on Involuntary Psychiatric Hospitalization? (January 9, 2011). Houston Journal of Health Law and Policy 2011;11:365-453, U of Cincinnati Public Law Research Paper No. 11-02, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1737389

Douglas Mossman (Contact Author)

University of Cincinnati College of Medicine ( email )

260 Stetson Street, Suite 3200
P. O. Box 670559
Cincinnati, OH 45219
United States
513-558-4423 (Phone)

Allison H. Schwartz

Independent

Elise Lucas

University of Cincinnati - College of Law ( email )

P.O. Box 210040
Cincinnati, OH 45221-0040
United States

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
98
Abstract Views
1,530
Rank
483,702
PlumX Metrics