title: Judges' assumptions about the appropriateness of civil and forensic commitment.
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.
authors.affiliation: Law and Psychiatry Program, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester 01655, USA.
authors.forename: K L
authors.initials: KL
authors.lastname: Appelbaum
authors.forename: W H
authors.initials: WH
authors.lastname: Fisher
mesh_terms: D001294:Attitude to Health; D003134:Commitment of Persons with Psychiatric Disorders / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence / Q000592:standards*; D003625:Data Collection; D005555:Forensic Psychiatry / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence / Q000592:standards*; D006801:Humans; D007603:Jurisprudence; D008404:Massachusetts; D016743:Mental Competency / Q000523:psychology; D008605:Mental Health Services / Q000592:standards*