Involuntary Commitment Laws
I'm writing the chapter on how the pendulum on involuntary commitment laws has began to swing back--at least a little. Wisconsin, in 1996, added a fifth standard to their involuntary commitment law, allowing persons who were not in imminent danger to be committed if they were mentally ill, and were headed down a path of deterioration that could put them in imminent danger. This was upheld by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in State of Wisconsin v. Dennis H. (Wisc. 2002).
Does anyone know of any other states that have made similar efforts to ease involuntary commitment over the last twenty years?
There are a number of states that have adopted what are termed "involuntary outpatient commitment laws" over the last decade or so. These laws are a method of provided increased supervision over mentally ill persons short of hospitalizing them. In some cases, this means requiring them to accept treatment as a condition of staying outside of a hospital or jail.
Here in Idaho, some counties have something called Mental Health Court for mentally ill persons who have committed minor crimes, and which have the authority to require treatment to stay out of jail or prison.
New York has Kendra's Law, which applies to mental patients with a history of violent or self-destructive behavior. New York State Office of Mental Health, Kendra’s Law: Final Report on the Status of Assisted Outpatient Treatment, March 2005, is a detailed report on the results of the program.
California has something similar, although only some counties have implemented it. (San Francisco, of course, which has the most need to do so, refuses.)
Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, and the District of Columbia, all experimented with similar programs in the 1990s. If you can point me to any official documents or discussions of these programs, I would be much obliged. If you know of other states that have made similar efforts to reform involuntary commitment laws, please let me know.
No comments:
Post a Comment