A population at risk: civil commitment of substance abusers after Kansas v. Hendricks.
In its 1997 decision, Kansas v. Hendricks, the U.S. Supreme Court radically changed the face of civil commitment. In finding the Kansas Sexually Violent Predators Act constitutional, the Court liberalized the first constitutional requirement for involuntary commitment from "mental illness" to a much broader "mental abnormality" standard, without correspondingly restricting the second requirement of dangerousness. The decision essentially authorizes states to civilly commit a broad range of individuals without sufficient due process protections. This Comment explores the possibilities for expansion of civil commitment in the wake of Hendricks. It argues that the holding was unjustifiably broad, focusing in particular on the potential danger facing substance abusers. In conclusion, it offers several suggestions for mitigating the potential misuse of this dangerous precedent.
Krongard
Mara Lynn
ML
School of Law, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.
D002961:Civil Rights / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D003134:Commitment of Persons with Psychiatric Disorders / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D003617:Dangerous Behavior; D004335:Drug and Narcotic Control; D006801:Humans; D007615:Kansas; D011640:Public Policy; D012742:Sex Offenses / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D013219:State Government; D019966:Substance-Related Disorders; D035521:Supreme Court Decisions; D014481:United States