Abstract
Several states have revised their civil commitment statutes in recent years. A majority of the recent revisions reflect judicial directives to provide more explicit commitment criteria, but in some instances, criteria have been broadened in reaction to the difficulty of getting some individuals hospitalized under strict criteria. Such statutory changes have impacted considerably on both process and outcome of the civil commitment system. Adoption of explicit commitment criteria has resulted most visibly in substantial reduction of hospital admissions and census. The present study examines the impact of explicit changes in commitment criteria in Florida following the 1982 enactment of amendments to the Baker Act. A total of 80 commitment hearings are reviewed before and after the law took effect to determine procedural effects of the law on degree of defense counsel advocacy, client dispositions, and on the court's adherence to more explicit criteria. State hospital admissions, discharge, and census information is examined in order to identify the larger impact of 1982 statutory changes on the commitment system. Evidence from hearings and state data suggests that changes in the Florida law impacted significantly on both process and outcome of the civil commitment system. Clients referred to commitment hearings are more dangerous, and may represent a new “hard-core” group remaining after more explicit eligibility criteria are applied by local intake, and emergency detention facilities. State hospital admissions and census in Florida declined significantly following enactment of the 1982 law, consistent with findings from other states enacting similar statutory reforms. Implications for deinstitutionalization policy and administration are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Addington v. Texas. (1979). 99 S.Ct. 1804.
Andalman, E., & Chambers, D. (1974). Effective counsel for persons facing civil commitment.Mississippi Law Journal, 45, 43–91.
Bell v. Wayne County General Hospital. (1974). 384 F.Supp. 1085.
Bonovitz, J., & Guy, E. (1979). Impact of restrictive civil commitment procedures on a prison psychiatric serivice.American Journal of Psychiatry, 136, 1045–1048.
The impact of a child's due process victory on the California mental health system. (1982).California Law Review, 70, 375–426.
Cohen, F. (1966). The function of the attorney in the commitment of the mentally ill.Texas Law Review, 44, 424–441.
Commonwealth ex. rel. Finken v. Roop. (1975). 234 Pa.Super. 155, 339 A. 2d.
Covington v. Harris. (1969). 419 F.2d 617.
DeRisi, W., & Vega, W. (1983). The impact of deinstitutionalization on California's state hospital population.Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 34, 140–145.
Dixon v. Weinberger. (1975). 405 F.Supp. 976–977.
Durham, M., & Pierce, G. (1982). Beyond deinstitutionalization: A commitment law in evolution.Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 33, 216–219.
Feely, M. (1979).The process is the punishment: Handling cases in a lower criminal court. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS). (1983).An evaluation of deinstitutionalization in mental health: 1983. Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Program Office, February 1–143.
Frydman, L. (Spring 1980). Effects of psychiatric legislation: An example from Kansas.Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 73–98.
Gouse, A., Avellar, J., & Biskin, D. (1982). A clinical and legal evaluation of the need for involuntary commitment.Developments in Mental Health Law, 2, 33–43.
Goldman, H., Adams, N., & Taube, C. (1983). Deinstitutionalization: The data demythologized.Hospital and Community Psychiatry 34, 129–134.
Groethe, R. (1977). Overt dangerous behavior as a constitutional requirement for involuntary civil commitment of the mentally ill.University of Chicago Law Review, 44, 562–593.
Haupt, D., & Ehrlich, S. (1980). The impact of a new state commitment law on psychiatric patient careers.Hospital and Community Psychiatry 31, 745–750.
Hiday, V. (1977). Reformed commitment procedures: An empirical study in the courtroom.Law and Society Review, 11, 651–666.
Hiday, V. (1981). Court discretion: Application of the dangerousness standard in civil commitment.Law and Human Behavior, 5, 275–288.
Hiday, V. (1982). The attorney's role in involuntary civil commitment.North Carolina Law Review.60, 1027–1056.
Hoffman, P., & Foust, L. (1977). Least restrictive treatment of the mentally ill: A doctrine in search of its senses.San Diego Law Review, 14, 1100–1154.
Kiesler, C. (1982). Mental hospitals and alternative care.American Psychologist, 37, 349–360.
Lake v. Cameron. (1966). 364 F.2d. 660.
Lamb, H., Sorkin, M., & Zusman, J. (1981). Legislating social control of the mentally ill in California.American Journal of Psychiatry, 138, 334–339.
Lessard v. Schmidt. (1972). 249 F.Supp. 1096.
Luckey, J., & Berman, J. (1979). Effects of a new commitment law on involuntary admissions and service utilization patterns.Law and Human Behavior, 3, 149–161.
Lynch v. Baxley. (1974). 386 F.Supp. 378.
McGarry, A., Schwitzgebel, R., Lipsitt, P., & Lelos, D. (1981).Civil commitment and social policy: An evaluation of the Massachusetts Mental Health Reform Act of 1970. National Institute of Mental Health.
State laws governing civil commitment. (May–June 1979).Mental Disability Law Reporter, 206–214.
Miller, R., & Fiddleman, P. (1982). Involuntary civil commitment in North Carolina: The results of the 1979 statutory changes.North Carolina Law Review, 60, 985–1026.
Miller, KI., Jackson, J., and Kaplan, H. (June 1973).The Florida Mental Health Act: An assessment of impact. Governmental Research Bulletin, Florida State University, Institute for Social Research.
Munetz, M. (1981). Pennsylvania's commitment law: Problems in implementation, differences in interpretation.Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 32, 283–284.
Munetz, M., Kaufman, K., and Rich, C. (1981). Modernization of a mental health act—II: Outcome effects.Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 42, 333–337.
Nelsen, C. (1973).Applied time series analysis for managerial forecasting. San Francisco: Holden-Day.
O'Connor v. Donaldson. (1975). 422 U.S. 563.
Project Release v. Prevost. (1979). 78c U.S. District Court, Eastern District of N.Y.
Rubin, L., & Mills, M. (1983). Behavioral precipitants to civil commitment.American Journal of Psychiatry, 140, 603–605.
Schwitzgebel, R. (1981).Survey of state civil commitment statutes, in McGarry et al., 25–46.
Shuman, D., Hegland, K., & Wexler, D. (1977). Arizona's Mental Health Services Act: An overview and an analysis of proposed amendments.Arizona Law Review, 19, note 106, 319–328.
State v. O'Neil. (1976). 545 P.2d. 97.
State ex rel. Hawks v. Lazaro. (1974). 212 S.E.2d 123.
Stier, S., & Stoebe, K. (1979). Involuntary hospitalization of the mentally ill in Iowa: The failure of the 1975 legislation.Iowa Law Review, 64, 1284–1548.
Taube, C., & Cannon, M. (July 1972).Whom are community mental health centers serving? Statistical note 67. National Institute of Mental Health.
Urmer, A. (1973).The burden of the mentally disordered offender on law enforcement. ENKI Research Institute, Chatsworth California.
Warren, C. (1977). Involuntary commitment for mental disorders: The application of California's Lanterman-Petris-Short Act.Law and Society Review, 11, 629–649.
Wessel v. Pryor. (1978). 461 F.Supp. 1144.
Wexler, D., & Scoville, S. (1971). The administration of psychiatric justice: Theory and practice in Arizona,Arizona Law Review, 13, 1–259.
Zander, T. (1976). Civil commitment in Wisconsin: The impact of Lessard v. Schmidt.University of Wisconsin Law Review, 503–562.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
About this article
Cite this article
Peters, R., Miller, K.S., Schmidt, W. et al. The effects of statutory change on the civil commitment of the mentally ill. Law Hum Behav 11, 73–99 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01040443
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01040443