Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2379032
 


 



Confine Is Fine: Have the Non-Dangerous Mentally Ill Lost Their Right to Liberty? An Empirical Study to Unravel the Psychiatrist’s Crystal Ball


Donald H. Stone


University of Baltimore - School of Law

2012

Virginia Journal of Social Policy and the Law, Vol. 20, No. 2, Winter 2012, pp. 323-363
University of Baltimore School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2014-05

Abstract:     
This Article will examine the reverse trend in civil commitment laws in the wake of recent tragedies and discuss the effect of broader civil commitment standards on the care and treatment of the mentally ill. The 2007 Virginia Tech shooting, the 2011 shooting of Congresswoman Giffords, and the 2012 Aurora movie theatre shooting have spurred fierce debates about the dangerousness of mentally ill and serve as cautionary tale about what happens when warning signs go unnoticed and opportunities for early intervention missed. This piece will explore the misconception about the role medication and inpatient civil commitments should play in prevention of dangerousness and undermine the belief that we can medicate away the needs of the mentally ill. The adverse effect civil commitments can have on individuals’ long-term recovery, future employment prospects and overall mental, physical, emotional and economic stability can be far-reaching; so minimum due process protections must be carefully guarded. The contention is that civil commitment decisions should be based on concrete evidence that the individual is an imminent danger to self or others and not on a psychiatrists’ speculation about future deterioration absent coerced treatment. Statistical data, collected from a survey of 100 psychiatrists, will be examined to determine what is most significant to psychiatrists in commitment decisions and highlight the impact state standards and types of hospital facilities have on psychiatrists’ testimony at civil commitment proceedings. Finally, this Article will outline how “need for treatment” and “grave disability” provisions in commitment standards have stripped away due process protections for the mentally ill and discuss ways mental health advocates can fight back to reverse this troubling movement in commitment laws.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 44

Keywords: civil commitment laws, civil commitment standards, mentally ill, Virginia Tech shooting, Congresswoman Giffords, Aurora shooting, medication, inpatient civil commitments, due process protections, statistical data, psychiatrists, need for treatment, grave disability provisions

JEL Classification: I18, K19, K32, K39, K49

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: January 15, 2014 ; Last revised: January 23, 2014

Suggested Citation

Stone, Donald H., Confine Is Fine: Have the Non-Dangerous Mentally Ill Lost Their Right to Liberty? An Empirical Study to Unravel the Psychiatrist’s Crystal Ball (2012). Virginia Journal of Social Policy and the Law, Vol. 20, No. 2, Winter 2012, pp. 323-363; University of Baltimore School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2014-05. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2379032

Contact Information

Donald H. Stone (Contact Author)
University of Baltimore - School of Law ( email )
1420 N. Charles Street
Baltimore, MD 21218
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 103
Downloads: 20

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo1 in 0.296 seconds