Judges' assumptions about the appropriateness of civil and forensic commitmentSystems and Psychosocial Advances Research Center Publications and Presentations
UMMS AffiliationDepartment of Psychiatry
Medical Subject Headings*Attitude to Health; Commitment of Mentally Ill; Data Collection; Forensic Psychiatry; Humans; *Jurisprudence; Massachusetts; Mental Competency; Mental Health Services
AbstractThe 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.
Rights and PermissionsCitation: Psychiatr Serv. 1997 May;48(5):710-2.
Related ResourcesLink to Article in PubMed
Citation InformationKenneth 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: http://works.bepress.com/william_h_fisher/96/