Judges' assumptions about the appropriateness of civil and forensic commitment
| dc.contributor.author | Appelbaum, Kenneth L. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Fisher, William H. | |
| dc.date | 2022-08-11T08:10:23.000 | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2022-08-23T17:06:53Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2022-08-23T17:06:53Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 1997-05-01 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2011-01-05 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | Psychiatr Serv. 1997 May;48(5):710-2. | |
| dc.identifier.issn | 1075-2730 (Linking) | |
| dc.identifier.pmid | 9144830 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/45205 | |
| dc.description.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. | |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | |
| dc.relation | <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=9144830&dopt=Abstract">Link to Article in PubMed</a> | |
| dc.relation.url | http://ps.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/reprint/48/5/710 | |
| dc.subject | *Attitude to Health | |
| dc.subject | Commitment of Mentally Ill | |
| dc.subject | Data Collection | |
| dc.subject | Forensic Psychiatry | |
| dc.subject | Humans | |
| dc.subject | *Jurisprudence | |
| dc.subject | Massachusetts | |
| dc.subject | Mental Competency | |
| dc.subject | Mental Health Services | |
| dc.subject | Health Services Research | |
| dc.subject | Mental and Social Health | |
| dc.subject | Psychiatric and Mental Health | |
| dc.subject | Psychiatry | |
| dc.subject | Psychiatry and Psychology | |
| dc.title | Judges' assumptions about the appropriateness of civil and forensic commitment | |
| dc.type | Journal Article | |
| dc.source.journaltitle | Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) | |
| dc.source.volume | 48 | |
| dc.source.issue | 5 | |
| dc.identifier.legacycoverpage | https://escholarship.umassmed.edu/psych_cmhsr/306 | |
| dc.identifier.contextkey | 1718663 | |
| html.description.abstract | <p>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.</p> | |
| dc.identifier.submissionpath | psych_cmhsr/306 | |
| dc.contributor.department | Department of Psychiatry | |
| dc.source.pages | 710-2 |
This item appears in the following Collection(s)
Related items
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
-
A Public Health Framework for the State Mental Health Authority: A Call for Action by Massachusetts Consumers and Family MembersDuring the Spring of 2006, Consumer Quality Initiatives (CQI) conducted 20 focus groups across the state, 12 with adults with mental illness, 3 with parents of youth with serious emotional disorder, 2 with youth with SED, 1 with family members of adult consumers, and 2 with youth in transition. Supported by a contract with Massachusetts Department of Mental Health (DMH), the goal was to assist DMH in framing the criteria for its upcoming reprocurement. Our findings reveal a frustration with an approach to health care delivery that focuses primarily on the provision of psychiatric care (egs, medication, therapy, hospitalization). We reviewed the focus group reports to identify the most significant themes, which clustered within eight broad categories.
-
Promoting the Health of Parents & Children: Addressing Perinatal Mental Health by Building Medical Provider Capacity Through Perinatal Psychiatry Access ProgramsMental health conditions are the most common obstetric complications of the perinatal period, impacting 1 in 5 individuals during pregnancy and the year following pregnancy. Perinatal mental health (PMH) conditions have deleterious effects on the health of perinatal individuals and their children, and are a leading and preventable cause of maternal mortality. Nevertheless, PMH conditions are underrecognized, underdiagnosed, and undertreated. To address these gaps, Massachusetts created the Massachusetts Child Psychiatry Access Program (MCPAP) for Moms to build the capacity of frontline medical providers to address PMH conditions by providing education, consultation, and resources and referrals. MCPAP for Moms has emerged as a successful and scalable model with at least 25 states or organizations implementing or developing similar Perinatal Psychiatry Access Programs. This report summarizes the Perinatal Psychiatry Access Program model and its individual and national impact.
-
Linking Kids with Trauma to Evidence-Based Treatment: Implementation of a Centralized Referral System at the Child Trauma Training Center at the University of Massachusetts Medical SchoolAt a time when the general standard of child welfare and mental health provision has been improving, some important groups in Massachusetts remain under-served. One such is children suffering from trauma. Despite various state-wide efforts to educate professionals about the evidence-based treatments available, trauma sufferers have typically faced long waits to receive these treatments, with average waiting times at some larger mental health agencies stretching to four or even six months. In this brief, we are presenting the implementation of a highly innovative Centralized Referral System – LINK-KID – developed at the Child Trauma Training Center (CTTC) at the University of Massachusetts Medical School. LINK-KID referral system connects children in need of evidence-based trauma treatment with mental health providers who have been trained in these treatments.
