'Wayward and Noncompliant' People with Mental Disabilities: What Advocates of Involuntary Outpatient Commitment Can Learn from the Juvenile Court Experience with Status Offense Jurisdiction

Abstract

Proponents of involuntary outpatient commitment (IOC) have much to learn from a previous social and legal experiment designed to force an identified group of recalcitrant individuals to behave in ways that a benevolent state has deemed reasonable. It's called status offense jurisdiction, and empowers the state to assume authority over minors who are "wayward," "ungovernable," "incorrigible" or "stubborn and rebellious." Although these children have not committed any crime, the state may restrict their liberty under a blend of parens patriae and police power rationales, in order to protect them from future harm and provide them with rehabilitative treatment. Since the establishment in the United States of the first juvenile court in 1899, the various states and the federal government have struggled to address the unintended but serious negative consequences of attempts to protect and control non-criminal children whose common characteristic is their resistance to authority. This essay will review the history of status offense jurisdiction within the context of the juvenile justice system. Next it will draw parallels between status offense jurisdiction and proposed IOC of adults with mental disabilities who are "noncompliant" with what the state regards as a reasonable treatment plan. The paper predicts that IOC will have the same enforcement problems and negative consequences as status offense jurisdiction - indeed, possibly even more negative because of the additional stigma associated with the status of mental illness plus a prediction of future danger to self or others. Ultimately it recommends that proponents of IOC reconsider the whole concept in light of the cautionary tale of status offense jurisdiction.