An Illustration of the Theoretical Relationship between Civil Commitment Standards and Procedures
With the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Addington v. Texas,1 the procedural issue of the required standard of proof in civil commitment cases finally came to the fore. Addington was involuntarily committed by a Texas court for an indefinite period of time. His commitment was upheld by the Texas Supreme Court, which held constitutionally sufficient a “preponderance of the evidence” standard of proof. When his case reached the United States Supreme Court, Addington argued that his committability must be supported by evidence “beyond a reasonable doubt.” The Supreme Court settled on an intermediate standard and accordingly required “clear and convincing” proof of committability.
KeywordsDefend Heroin Alan Protec Havoc
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 5.Cocozza & Steadman, The Failure of Psychiatric Predictions of Dangerousness: Clear and Convincing Evidence, 29 Rutgers L. Rev. 1048, 1101 (1976).Google Scholar
- 8.Morse, Crazy Behavior, Morals, and Science: An Analysis of Mental Health Law, 51 So. Calif. L. Rev. 527 (1978).Google Scholar
- 16.Mental Health Law Project, Suggested Statute on Civil Commitment, 2 Ment. Disability L. Rep. 127 (1977).Google Scholar