Judges' assumptions about the appropriateness of civil and forensic commitment
Appelbaum, Kenneth L. ; Fisher, William H.
Citations
Student Authors
Faculty Advisor
Academic Program
UMass Chan Affiliations
Document Type
Publication Date
Subject Area
Embargo Expiration Date
Link to Full Text
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.