3 ms·

There are two situations in the US in which a person can be committed against their will. The first is if the person is considered a threat to themselves or oth

There are two situations in the US in which a person can be committed against their will. The first is if the person is considered a threat to themselves or others. I don't believe there's a standard evaluation for that. But the threat needs to be immediate and explicit. A homeless person wandering through a park shouting he's going to kill the president isn't going to cut it. However, that person could wind up arrested, which brings us to the second reason a person could be involuntarily committed: being mentally unfit to stand trial. And for that there are standardized evaluations. Keep in mind the bar for being mentally fit to stand trial is pretty low. It basically means you understand what a judge is, what a jury is, what the lawyers do, being able to communicate with and understand your lawyer, etc. If you are found unfit to stand trial, you will be involuntarily committed until such a time as you are considered fit to stand trial.

Mirioron 7y ago
>If you are found unfit to stand trial, you will be involuntarily committed until such a time as you are considered fit to stand trial. So, indefinite incarceration without being able to see an attorney or even a judge? Any system will have cracks and people do fall through those.
- openasocket 7y ago
  You can still see an attorney while committed, and you will be periodically re-evaluated and that goes before a judge. As for cracks, I'm aware of cases where a person has been put on a 72 hour hold inappropriately, but one bigger issue is declaring people mentally fit for trial who really aren't. I know institutions in Florida have been criticized for basically doing the bare minimum to make people appear to be just barely mentally fit. You are correct that people found mentally unfit to stand trial can remain committed for years, particularly those with drug-resistant schizophrenia. Tragically, for some of the most vulnerable members of society this is the best case scenario. People with severe schizophrenia who can't function often end up on the street, suffering hardships and victimized. There are parents who's child is on the street, getting frostbite and being assaulted, who go to any psychologist they can find to try to find someone to declare their child a threat to themselves or others so they can get into treatment. But they rarely are. Often they just have to hope their child commits some minor infraction like shop lifting and wind up declared unfit to stand trial so they can get the treatment they need.
  - Mirioron 7y ago
    Then there are people like Gustl Mollath: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustl_Mollath https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustl_Mollath You make it sound like this is only used for good and that nothing can ever go wrong with this system. That's not true. While you do get reevaluated, you get reevaluated by colleagues of the person (or the same person) who initially committed you. Furthermore, you're forced to take mind altering substances at their say-so and are imprisoned in a place, where any sign of fear or anxiety is counted against you. Also, in some places it's possible for the psychiatrist to determine that contact with an attorney would "exacerbate your condition" and can bar you from seeing one. I would much rather be on the street and free than indefinitely locked up and treated as poorly as people in mental institutions are.
    - openasocket 7y ago
      Like I said, I can only comment on the system in the US. I hadn't heard of the person you mentioned, but it seems this was a case in Germany where he was found not guilty of charges on the basis of insanity, and held in a psychiatric facility. I'm not entirely sure if that could happen in a US court. Getting a not guilty by insanity verdict is rare, and would have to be made by the defense with the consent of the defendant. There is absolutely room for abuse in the system, in the US and any other country, I won't argue against that. And I'd love to here any proposed reforms or ideas you might have about improving that. Requiring the mental health evaluator and the facility treating you to be separate would reduce the issue you mentioned about being re-evaluated by "colleagues of the person (or the same person) who initially committed you" and I think that is currently the case in the US in some states, though I'm not sure. Also requiring that someone always has access to an attorney would be good (again, I'm fairly sure that's true in the US). I also think significantly more funding should be made available to mental health institutions, allowing people to voluntarily enter for free or for a small rate, expansion of halfway-house type facilities and programs, restructuring the administration of facilities (a big complaint from my father is that bureaucrats with little education often had control over facility policies rather than the PhDs who dedicated themselves to studying the best way to treat mental illness)

Mirioron 7y ago

>If you are found unfit to stand trial, you will be involuntarily committed until such a time as you are considered fit to stand trial. So, indefinite incarceration without being able to see an attorney or even a judge? Any system will have cracks and people do fall through those.

openasocket 7y ago
You can still see an attorney while committed, and you will be periodically re-evaluated and that goes before a judge. As for cracks, I'm aware of cases where a person has been put on a 72 hour hold inappropriately, but one bigger issue is declaring people mentally fit for trial who really aren't. I know institutions in Florida have been criticized for basically doing the bare minimum to make people appear to be just barely mentally fit. You are correct that people found mentally unfit to stand trial can remain committed for years, particularly those with drug-resistant schizophrenia. Tragically, for some of the most vulnerable members of society this is the best case scenario. People with severe schizophrenia who can't function often end up on the street, suffering hardships and victimized. There are parents who's child is on the street, getting frostbite and being assaulted, who go to any psychologist they can find to try to find someone to declare their child a threat to themselves or others so they can get into treatment. But they rarely are. Often they just have to hope their child commits some minor infraction like shop lifting and wind up declared unfit to stand trial so they can get the treatment they need.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  Then there are people like Gustl Mollath: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustl_Mollath https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustl_Mollath You make it sound like this is only used for good and that nothing can ever go wrong with this system. That's not true. While you do get reevaluated, you get reevaluated by colleagues of the person (or the same person) who initially committed you. Furthermore, you're forced to take mind altering substances at their say-so and are imprisoned in a place, where any sign of fear or anxiety is counted against you. Also, in some places it's possible for the psychiatrist to determine that contact with an attorney would "exacerbate your condition" and can bar you from seeing one. I would much rather be on the street and free than indefinitely locked up and treated as poorly as people in mental institutions are.
  - openasocket 7y ago
    Like I said, I can only comment on the system in the US. I hadn't heard of the person you mentioned, but it seems this was a case in Germany where he was found not guilty of charges on the basis of insanity, and held in a psychiatric facility. I'm not entirely sure if that could happen in a US court. Getting a not guilty by insanity verdict is rare, and would have to be made by the defense with the consent of the defendant. There is absolutely room for abuse in the system, in the US and any other country, I won't argue against that. And I'd love to here any proposed reforms or ideas you might have about improving that. Requiring the mental health evaluator and the facility treating you to be separate would reduce the issue you mentioned about being re-evaluated by "colleagues of the person (or the same person) who initially committed you" and I think that is currently the case in the US in some states, though I'm not sure. Also requiring that someone always has access to an attorney would be good (again, I'm fairly sure that's true in the US). I also think significantly more funding should be made available to mental health institutions, allowing people to voluntarily enter for free or for a small rate, expansion of halfway-house type facilities and programs, restructuring the administration of facilities (a big complaint from my father is that bureaucrats with little education often had control over facility policies rather than the PhDs who dedicated themselves to studying the best way to treat mental illness)