法律英语：39 Involuntary Commitment: Part 1

（单词翻译）

by Michael W. Flynn
 
First, a disclaimer: Although I am an attorney, the legal information in this podcast is not intended to be a substitute for seeking personalized legal advice from an attorney licensed¹ to practice in your jurisdiction². Further, I do not intend to create an attorney-client relationship with any listener.

Today is the first episode in a two-part series on involuntary commitment. Jeff wrote:

Perhaps you could cover involuntary committal. This would probably require two episodes, one addressing the desire of a family to have someone committed for their own good, and one addressing how someone can resist such committal.

Great idea Jeff. Today, I will cover some of the history of involuntary commitment, and how it has evolved. In the next episode, I will cover some specific modern topics, and how involuntary commitment works practically.

Historically in common law countries such as the United Kingdom, the government had the power to force people into mental health institutions when they posed an immediate³ threat of physical danger to themselves or others. British judges upheld these commitments on the ground that the government generally has broad police powers to keep the peace. Just as the government could damage private property to stop a fire that endangered the public at large, or had the power to prevent a business from dumping noxious⁴ chemicals on the street, the government had the same power to force dangerous people to submit to health care to protect the public from damaging behavior. This often went hand in hand with criminal proceedings⁵ because the person who was dangerous had often already hurt someone, and so had committed some sort of assault or battery.

This general scheme was imported into the Colonies and became ingrained in American legal systems in the 18th Century. It remained generally unchanged until the early-to-mid-20th century, when modern psychology⁶ was born. Scholars, doctors and psychologists began to recognize that many people do harm to themselves and others without understanding that they are doing the harm, or do not understand the consequences of their actions. As this type of understanding took hold, legislators started to separate the generic⁷ criminal, who understands the consequences of their harmful actions, from the mentally ill. They reasoned that a mentally ill patient needed different treatment by the legal system to eventually reintegrate the patient back into society. Rather than allowing only the criminal justice system to throw the patient in jail to remove the immediate harm from society, legislators determined⁸ that it would be better to treat such patients, and treat the root of the problem.

According to many legal and psychological historians, the other change was a general change in attitude towards who should care for mentally ill patients and when. These scholars opined that, in the past, the family unit was stronger and more intact. If a member of the family was mentally ill, then the family and close-knit community structure would take the burden of caring for the person, and ensure that he would not harm others. However, modern society, especially in the United States, placed a greater emphasis on self-reliance and independence. So, many people moved far from their families and original communities. After developing a mental illness, the patient would not have the same assistance from private resources. Thus, the state was more likely to have to deal with these patients and stop them from harming fellow citizens, and also to shoulder the burden of health care treatment.

So, based on the shift in understanding of why mentally ill citizens harm society, and the change in family paradigms⁹, modern civil commitment statutes¹⁰ began to develop. These statutes empowered police and other government officials to forcibly submit a person to receiving treatment from the government. The rationale was that the state would suffer far greater harms by ignoring the patient than by proactively treating and caring for the patient.

But, such statutes were of course challenged by patients being treated, or by members of the patient’s family. In some cases, some members of the family would petition to have the patient committed, but others would fight to keep them out of mental health facilities. For example, a wife would petition to have her husband committed, but the husband’s parents would urge the state to allow them to care for their son. These cases were often ugly and sad, with both sides arguing that their position was in the best interest of the patient.

Please check out the next episode in which I discuss the current state of affairs regarding involuntary civil commitment, and what steps can be taken to keep a patient out of involuntary commitment.

Thank you for listening to Legal Lad’s Quick and Dirty Tips for a More Lawful¹¹ Life. You can send questions and comments to。。。。。。 or call them in to the voice mail line at 206-202-4LAW. Please note that doing so will not create an attorney-client relationship and will be used for the purposes of this podcast only.