Skip to main content
Judges' assumptions about the appropriateness of civil and forensic commitment
Systems and Psychosocial Advances Research Center Publications and Presentations
  • Kenneth L. Appelbaum, University of Massachusetts Medical School
  • William H. Fisher, University of Massachusetts Medical School
UMMS Affiliation
Department of Psychiatry
Publication Date
Document Type
*Attitude to Health; Commitment of Mentally Ill; Data Collection; Forensic Psychiatry; Humans; *Jurisprudence; Massachusetts; Mental Competency; Mental Health Services
The study examined judges' reasons for ordering pretrial forensic evaluation instead of civil commitment for persons with mental illness who are arrested. Fifty-five of 58 judges acknowledged having concerns about the adequacy of treatment or confinement in the civil mental health system, and 31 reported ordering pretrial forensic evaluations as a means of ensuring adequate treatment for patients who appear in their courts. Other frequently endorsed reasons for ordering these evaluations included lack of confidence in the ability to civilly commit mentally ill offenders and concerns about their being discharged prematurely. This study confirms suspicions that judges order pretrial evaluations to fill perceived gaps in the civil system.
Psychiatr Serv. 1997 May;48(5):710-2.
Related Resources
Link to Article in PubMed
PubMed ID
Citation Information
Kenneth L. Appelbaum and William H. Fisher. "Judges' assumptions about the appropriateness of civil and forensic commitment" Vol. 48 Iss. 5 (1997) ISSN: 1075-2730 (Linking)
Available at: