Title
Judges' assumptions about the appropriateness of civil and forensic commitment
UMMS Affiliation
Department of Psychiatry
Publication Date
1997-05-01
Document Type
Article
Subjects
*Attitude to Health; Commitment of Mentally Ill; Data Collection; Forensic Psychiatry; Humans; *Jurisprudence; Massachusetts; Mental Competency; Mental Health Services
Disciplines
Health Services Research | Mental and Social Health | Psychiatric and Mental Health | Psychiatry | Psychiatry and Psychology
Abstract
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.
Source
Psychiatr Serv. 1997 May;48(5):710-2.
Journal/Book/Conference Title
Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.)
Related Resources
PubMed ID
9144830
Repository Citation
Appelbaum, Kenneth L. and Fisher, William H., "Judges' assumptions about the appropriateness of civil and forensic commitment" (1997). Implementation Science and Practice Advances Research Center Publications. 306.
https://escholarship.umassmed.edu/psych_cmhsr/306
