Outpatient civil commitment: a dangerous charade or a component of a comprehensive institution of civil commitment?
This article examines three criticisms frequently directed toward preventive commitment as one form of outpatient commitment. These criticisms contend that preventive commitment (a) abandons the dangerousness criteria for civil commitmnet, (b) promotes unwarranted inpatient commitment of those who do not meet civil commitment criteria, and (c) undermines important individual liberties by diluting the right to refuse treatment. Understanding and evaluating these criticisms requires analysis of the intersection among empirical, conceptual, and justificatory claims. According to the analysis presented here, advocates of preventive commitment can defend a legitimate role for preventive commitment. This analysis applies to preventive commitment as a dispositional alternative within a comprehensive institution of civil commitment involving distinct parens patriae and police power components.
Schopp
Robert F
RF
University of Nebraska College of Law, P.O. Box 830902, Lincoln, NE 68583-0902, USA. rschoppl@unl.edu
D002961:Civil Rights / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D003068:Coercion; D003134:Commitment of Persons with Psychiatric Disorders / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D003156:Community Mental Health Services / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D003416:Criminal Law; D003617:Dangerous Behavior; D036262:Empirical Research; D005610:Freedom; D006801:Humans; D037141:Mandatory Programs; D016743:Mental Competency / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D028642:Persons with Psychiatric Disorders; D010349:Patient Compliance; D011618:Psychotic Disorders; D016312:Treatment Refusal / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D014481:United States; D035141:Voluntary Programs