There Are Two General Forms Of Civil Commitment Traditional

There Are Two General Forms Of Civil Commitment Traditional Civil Com

There are two general forms of civil commitment: traditional civil commitment and commitment under specialized statutes. Your textbook reviews the two forms of civil commitment and the requirements for each form. Take a position on whether or not these requirements are objective, and provide a rationale for your response. Next, suggest one additional requirement (not included in the textbook) that would give authorities a more subjective standard to resort to in borderline cases for civil commitment. Justify your response. The possible outcomes in such cases include the person being committed to a mental health facility or being allowed to go home.

Additionally, choose two out of the three possible outcomes that may occur when a court acquits a defendant by reason of insanity. Discuss the value that each selected outcome adds to the legal process and analyze whether this added value justifies the costs incurred as a result of the action taken after the defendant’s acquittal.

Paper For Above instruction

The processes surrounding civil commitment and the application of insanity defense in the legal system are critical mechanisms designed to protect individual rights while ensuring public safety. This paper examines the objectivity of the requirements for civil commitment, proposes a subjective criterion for borderline cases, and discusses the implications of outcomes following an insanity acquittal, emphasizing both legal and ethical considerations.

Objective Nature of Civil Commitment Requirements

Civil commitment involves legally depriving an individual of liberty for psychiatric treatment if they are deemed mentally ill and a danger to themselves or others. The traditional model and specialized statutes each impose specific criteria that must be met for civil commitment. These typically include the presence of mental illness, danger to self or others, and the need for treatment (Gutterman, 2014). From a legal perspective, these criteria are designed to be objective, relying on observable evidence, psychiatric evaluations, and standardized assessments to minimize subjective bias (Dvoskin & Appelbaum, 2014).

However, despite the intention for objectivity, questions arise regarding the inherent subjectivity embedded within psychiatric diagnoses and risk assessments. For instance, determining what constitutes a ‘danger’ or ‘mental illness’ involves clinical judgment, which can vary among professionals and be influenced by cultural and societal norms (Finkelstein, 2012). This variability suggests that while formal standards are in place, they are not entirely objective in practice.

A Subjective Standard in Borderline Cases

To address the limitations of strict objectivity, I propose the incorporation of a ‘contextual urgency’ criterion, which considers the individual’s circumstances, history, and environmental factors in borderline cases. For example, an additional requirement could be that authorities justify civil commitment based on the person's current environment and potential triggers that might escalate their risk, even if clinical symptoms are not overtly present (Appelbaum, 2018). This approach introduces a more nuanced, subjective consideration that accounts for personal and situational variables, leading to more tailored decision-making. It recognizes that rigid standards may overlook individual complexities and that flexible, context-sensitive judgments could better serve justice and therapeutic outcomes.

Outcomes in Cases of Insanity Acquittal

When a defendant is acquitted by reason of insanity, three outcomes are typically considered: (1) commitment to a mental health facility, (2) conditional release with supervision, or (3) outright release without restrictions. For this discussion, I focus on the first two options.

Commitment to a mental health facility ensures ongoing treatment and public safety by preventing potential recidivism. It provides an opportunity for the individual to receive necessary care, which can facilitate recovery and potentially reintegrate the person into society safely (Lamb & Weinberger, 2020). This outcome adds value by aligning mental health needs with public safety concerns and maintaining societal trust in the justice system’s capacity to handle complex cases.

Conditional release with supervision balances individual rights and public safety. It permits the person to reintegrate into society under monitoring and treatment plans. This outcome emphasizes the importance of respecting the defendant’s autonomy while managing risk (Freeman, 2015). It adds value by promoting rehabilitation and avoiding indefinite detention, which can be costly and ethically contentious.

Justification of the Benefits Versus Costs

The added value derived from these outcomes—particularly ongoing treatment and supervised release—is significant in fostering therapeutic progress and societal safety. While these options incur costs related to healthcare, monitoring, and administrative resources, these investments are justified. They reflect a commitment to humane treatment, mental health recovery, and the social responsibility to protect the community. However, the costs must be weighed carefully against the potential benefits, and procedural safeguards should prevent unnecessary extensions of confinement or restrictions (Geller, 2019).

In conclusion, while the current standards for civil commitment aim for objectivity, incorporating more subjective, context-sensitive criteria could improve decision-making fairness. The chosen outcomes after insanity acquittal offer meaningful contributions to justice and public wellbeing, and their benefits often outweigh the associated costs when balanced properly with ethical considerations and resource allocation.

References

  • Appelbaum, P. S. (2018). Ethical issues in psychiatric decision making. Psychiatric Clinics, 41(2), 255-270.
  • Dvoskin, J. A., & Appelbaum, P. S. (2014). The role of mental health professionals in civil commitment decisions. Journal of Psychiatric Practice, 20(2), 141-148.
  • Finkelstein, S. R. (2012). Risk assessment and prediction in psychiatry. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 73(5), e1-e7.
  • Geller, J. D. (2019). The cost of mental health treatment in the criminal justice system. Advances in Mental Health, 17(3), 180-186.
  • Gutterman, D. (2014). Civil commitment law, psychiatric diagnosis, and evaluation standards. American Journal of Psychiatry, 171(12), 1254-1258.
  • Lamb, H. R., & Weinberger, L. E. (2020). Community treatment of persons with severe mental illness. The Psychiatric Quarterly, 91(2), 259-273.
  • Finkelstein, S., et al. (2016). Evaluation of mental health risk in legal settings. Court Review, 52(4), 16-23.
  • Freeman, R. D. (2015). Reconsidering mental health law: Risks, rights, and remedies. Law and Human Behavior, 39(4), 345-350.
  • Gutterman, D. (2014). Civil commitment law, psychiatric diagnosis, and evaluation standards. American Journal of Psychiatry, 171(12), 1254-1258.
  • Lamb, H. R., & Weinberger, L. E. (2020). Community treatment of persons with severe mental illness. The Psychiatric Quarterly, 91(2), 259-273.

Related Assignments