Civil Commitment Flashcards
Lake v Cameron
DC Circuit court of Appeals 1966
pt w/memory impairment, lost and wandering
cannot be held involuntarily if there is some less restrictive tx alternative
Lessard v Schmidt
Wisconsin District (Federal) Court 1972
WI statute violated 14A due process.
“Criminalization of civil commitment.”
Created safeguards similar to criminal proceedings:
- burden = beyond reasonable doubt
- 5A right not to self-incriminate
- no hearsay evidence
Set the high water mark at the state level for civil commitment.
O’Connor v Donaldson
USSC 1975
“A state cannot constitutionally confine, w/o more, a nondangerous individual capable of surviving safely in freedom by himself or w/the help of responsible others.”
No right to tx was found.
Addington v Texas
USSC 1979
Established the CLEAR AND CONVINCING standard for civil commitment.
“One who is suffering from a debilitating mental illness and in need of tx is neither wholly at liberty nor free of stigma.”
Community Mental Health Act of 1963
provided funding for community mental health centers in the U.S. Passed as part of John F. Kennedy’s New Frontier, and furthered deinstitutionalization
Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS Act)
Passed in CA in 1969.
Endorsed voluntary tx and repealed indefinite commitment, while including provisions for procedural protection in the case of involuntary interventions.
It set the tone of reform that influenced commitment statutes in the U.S.
Parham v J.R.
USSC 1979
Held that the constitutional minimum for civil commitment of minors is less than the full judicial review given to adults. Parents’ rights to investigate illness in their child and seek tx outweighed child’s liberty interests. However, a neutral fact finder is required to offset any parental decision risk for error.
(Court applied Matthews v Eldridge analysis.)
Zinermon v Burch
USSC 1990
Held that a pt who is incompetent to consent to admission is denied constitutionally guaranteed procedural safeguards when he merely acquiesces to hospitalization.
Burch was found wandering on FL hwy, hallucinating, confused, believing he was in heaven. He signed forms consenting to “voluntary” admission to the 1st facility, then was txferred to FL State Hospital where he again signed forms consenting to “voluntary” admission. upon release, he filed a 42 USC 1983 complaint alleging defendants knew or should have known he was incompetent to give informed consent, and the failure to initiate FL’s invol commitment procedure denied him constitutionally guaranteed procedural safeguards.
Matter of Josiah Oakes
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts 1845
“A person who is insane, or delirious, may be confined, or restrained of his liberty, by his family, or by others, to such extent, and for such length of time, as may be necessary to prevent injury or danger to himself and others.”
Introduced concept of DANGER TO SELF OR OTHERS.
Packard v Packard
1864 IL case.
Elizabeth Packard married a minister but decided she disagreed w/his religious beliefs. He had her committed for 3 yrs to Jacksonville State Hospital. When she got out, her husband claimed she was insane and that he was entitled to confine her at home. Jury found her sane, and judge ordered her release. When she got home, her husband had sold the house and left for Massachusetts with her money, notes, wardrobe, and children, and she had no legal recourse.
Kendra’s Law
1999 NY State law for invol o/p commitment.
Andrew Goldstein, while off meds, pushed Kendra Webdale to her death in front of a subway train. He pleaded G and got 32 yrs. The 1990s saw several similar incidents. A study found the victims were always strangers and the offenders were mostly psychotic and homeless.
Per Kendra’s Law, must meet following criteria:
- 18+ yo
- suffering from mental illness
- unlikely to survive safely in community w/o supervision
- h/o noncompliance w/tx for mental illness
Thomas Szasz, MD
Published “The Myth of Mental Illness” at around the time Erving Goffman published “Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates” and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. At around this time, Wyatt v Stickney (1971) raised concerns about the unacceptable state of institutional care in some facilities. The pendulum of change was swinging away from a need for tx (parens patriae) justification and toward a dangerousness standard.
Less Restrictive Alternative Doctrine
set forth in Lake v Cameron, holds that the State must investigate lesser restrictive forms of tx prior to involuntary hospitalization
Mathews v Eldridge analysis
balances
1) private interest to be affected by govt action
2) risk of error
3) govt interest
Heller v Doe
USSC 1993
Persons facing invol civil commitment can be treated differently, depending on whether they have MI or ID.
KY’s statute, which allowed for burden of proof to be Clear and Convincing for ID but Beyond Reasonable Doubt for MI, was found to be constitutional.
Found that there was a rational relationship between the disparity of tx and a legitimate govt purpose.
