Civil Commitment Every individual is accorded with civil liberties which are protected both by the federal and state laws. They cannot be deprived with their liberties without due process of law except when there are compelling reasons to do so. One of the processes which deprive impaired persons from their civil liberties is civil commitment. The State of Utah (2016) defines civil commitment as a legal process of incarcerating an individual with symptoms involving several mental illnesses by providing compulsory, court-ordered treatment. Individuals are detained and are restricted from their movements because the illnesses they have may pose imminent danger to others or even themselves. For the purposes of this paper, the topic to be assessed …show more content…
First, a law enforcement officer can only detain an individual when the officer believes that the person to be detained meets the commitment criteria. This belief must be based on a probable cause. The person can only be detained for up to 72 hours in the hospital (Greenley, n.d.). The issuance of further detention can only be authorized by a court after the expiration of the 72 hour limit (Greenley, n.d.). Second, the petition may be signed by three adults, at least one of whom believes that the person to be detained needs to be civilly admitted. The third way to start a commitment commences when a person is already in a psychiatric hospital (Greenley, n.d.). In this regard, the patient may be detained by the treatment director if he believes that the person needs to he admitted (Greenley, n.d.). The Risk of Civil Commitment The use of civil commitment or involuntary hospitalization is controversial because it involves a serious deprivation of a person's liberty. Mental health practitioners must evaluate the risk in the context of civil commitment. References State of Utah. (2016). Civil Commitment. Retrieved from http://dsamh.utah.gov/provider-
Involuntary commitment or civil commitment is a legal process through which an individual with symptoms of severe mental illness is court-ordered into treatment in
The prevalence of individuals with severe mental illness entering the criminal justice system creates a social injustice and substantial cost. People with mental illness cycle thorough courtrooms, jails, and prisons, generating a concern among policy-makers, criminal administrators, practitioners, families, and advocates. These facilities lack the ability to provide adequate treatment and results in a damaging cycle. In 2000, The United States Congress responded to these individuals by authorizing Policy Law 106-515 or mental health court; combining court supervision and community-based treatment services for individuals with mental illness. Policy Law 106-515 is a therapeutic court approach which seeks to provide effective treatment and eliminate
In the book, Crazy, by Pete Earley, provides a detailed overview of the mental health system in the United States, as it presents a first hand narrative of Earley’s family journey through the system. The author’s major premise and arguments, in the book, is to highlight the history of mental health, navigation through the judicial system with mental illness, the bureaucracy and policies of hospitals, society views on human rights and client safety, and the impact on the individual, family, and community. The content suggests that human service workers and public health workers should extend their professional lens to advocate for change in the mental health system in the United States.
Over the past thirty years, there has been a 500% increase in the U.S incarceration rate. (The Sentencing project, 2014) Advances in medicine, such as the discovery of psychoactive drugs, led to the deinstitutionalization of mentally ill patients from psychiatric hospitals. With a long record of horrific abuse,
Jails and prisons are not set up to meet the treatment and accountability needs of the mentally ill (“Mental Health Court”, n.d.). “Inmates with mental illnesses are more likely than other to be held in solitary confinement, and many are raped, commit suicide, or hurt themselves” (Swanson, 2014). Making mental health courts mandatory would better address these needs by offering treatment,
Authors in this article from the University of California observe and focus on the risks and rates involved in people that have a mental disorder and correlate it with incarceration as well as people with re-incarceration. While performing these studies researchers found an alarming number of people incarcerated had a severe mental illness and substance abuse issues. Much of the knowledge in numbers of people with a mental illness are brought from a correctional view, but researchers here try to also focus on numbers of people in the public mental health system as well.
Given the number of incarcerated inmates who suffer from some form of mental illness, there are growing concerns and questions in the medical field about treatment of the mentally ill in the prison system. When a person with a mental illness commits a crime or break the law, they are immediately taken to jail or sent off to prison instead of being evaluated and placed in a hospital or other mental health facility. “I have always wondered if the number of mentally ill inmates increased since deinstitutionalization” Since prison main focus is on the crimes inmates are incarcerated; the actual treatment needed for the mentally ill is secondary. Mentally ill prisoners on the surface may appear to be just difficult inmates depending on the
Although there are many people who support involuntary commitment, there are also those who do not. Despite all of the support for involuntary commitment of dangerous, mentally disturbed individuals; there will always be people in opposition to this practice. In America especially, it is currently a very controversial topic. Those against involuntary commitment of the mentally disordered argue that it “is an extraordinary exercise of paternalism and the police power of the state” (Morse 58).
Individuals with a mental illness enter a mental health court as it reduces the number of clients with mental illnesses in the criminal justice system, reduces stigma and stereotypical judgement in court, and reduces the number of clients with mental illnesses in prisons and jails. Although the judge does sentence the client, the client does still retain rights: The right to refuse treatments, the right to proper care and documentation, the right to be informed of all available medical treatments, and most importantly, the right to be treated with dignity as a human being. The court demonstrated that the client’s rights were addressed by offering the client the opportunity to voice his concerns, and by acknowledging his views on his condition. Even though the client did not think he needed help, the nurse and case manager were concerned about his hallucination, eating patterns, and lack of stability. They did not believe that an outpatient setting would work for this client as he was not stable, did not have clear insight, and retained a lack of resources. Barrier to care, for the mental health in general, include: lack of resource, knowledge deficits, stigma, financial barriers, and lack of mental health care professionals. Overall, this experience offered me to opportunity to perceive how a Mental Health Court functions and differs from the traditional court room, in relation to client goals,
The United States criminal justice system has been continuously increasing incarceration among individuals who suffer from a sever mental illness. As of 2007 individuals with severe mental illness were over twice as likely to be found in prisons than in society (National Commission of Correctional Health Care, 2002, as cited in Litschge &Vaughn, 2009). The offenses that lead to their commitment in a criminal facility, in the majority of cases, derive from symptoms of their mental illness instead of deviant behavior. Our criminal justice system is failing those who would benefit more from the care of a psychiatric rehabilitation facility or psychiatric hospital by placing them in correctional facilities or prisons.
Despite the fact that my parents have worked in the criminal justice system for many years, I have never given much thought to the treatment of prisoners. As we learned from the readings, the current state of the United States criminal justice system is imperfect to the point of cruelty to those involved in it. This is truer for individuals with a mental illness. Due to a lack of psychiatric facilities throughout Alabama and overcrowding of those that do exist, many criminal offenders with mental illnesses are sent to prisons instead. State prisons are currently overcrowded, leading to substandard conditions such in almost every aspect.
Ultimately, involuntary commitment remains a complicated medically and ethically debated topic; one that creates a conflict and clear divide, between individuals who content that involuntary commitment results in vulnerable individuals with psychiatric illnesses being subjective to coercion and civil rights infringement, and those who believe, based on the principle of utility, that involuntary commitment is essential and integral to the safety of the those with psychiatric illnesses, as well as to society as a whole. Both sides offer empirical evidence, as well as moral support for why they believe involuntary commitment is either legally and morally acceptable, or ethically unacceptable, and thereby should be illegal. Regardless, infringing
The individual is then taken into custody and placed on a hold for 72 hours. During this time a professional doctor or a mental health worker in the designated county will assess and evaluate the individual to determine if they are in danger of imminent harm to themselves or others. Once the 72 hour hold is up and it is to be believed that the individual does have a mental health disorder, and unable to care for themselves; in addition, to being a danger to others; consequently, they will be admitted into a mental health facility or an advocate will be required to provide further assistance for alternative
Jails have been described as “de facto mental hospitals” because they have filled the void created when state psychiatric hospitals began closing in the early 1960s through a process known as deinstitutionalization. Supporters of deinstitutionalization thought the process would help individuals suffering from a mental illness live more self-reliantly while being treated by community mental health programs. However, the federal government did not provide the necessary funding to meet the mounting demand for these programs, leaving numerous untreated. Individuals with serious mental illnesses are often poor or homeless and are likely to have substance abuse problems. Therefore, when they are left untreated, they are more likely to commit minor crimes that have been the focus of law enforcement in recent years (H. Richard Lamb and Linda Weinberger).
This research paper discusses the issues of people who suffer from mental illness being placed in jails instead of receiving the necessary treatment they need. The number of inmates serving time in jail or prison who suffer from mental illness continues to rise. In 2015 the Bureau of Justice reported that sixty five percent of state prisoners and fourth five percent of federal prisoners suffered from mental conditions such as bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. Individuals who suffer from these problems require special mental health treatment for their needs to be met. Many of our prisons and jails lack the necessary resources to care for these inmates and because of that inmates who do not receive the treatment they need are at a higher risk of becoming a repeat offender. Despite the research and findings that show that the criminal justice system is unable to deal with issues dealing with the mentally ill there has been limited solutions put in place. Given the challenges the criminal justice system faces it is important to address the problem and come up with better solutions. This research paper will discuss the various techniques and solutions that scholars have propped and their effect on the issue of mentally ill criminals and how the criminal justice system should approach the problem.