Civil Commitment Theory Sherrie Brown Dennis Lang LSJ 332/CHID 332 Fall 2006

Legal Justification for Civil Commitment  Parens Patriae Traditional role of state as “sovereign and guardian of persons under legal disability.” Used as justification for involuntary institutionalization of people with mental disabilities in mid-19 th Century USA. Theory is that state has obligation to protect interests of those who cannot do so for themselves—requires finding of incapacity. Typically used to commit people who are considered danger to themselves.

Continued…  Police Power Purpose is to protect society from potential harm—e.g., criminal laws and public health codes Justification for commitment of people with mental illness who are considered danger to others. Unlike criminal defendants, people facing police power commitments can be confined without proof that they violated criminal law.

Constitutional Theories to Challenge Institutionalization  14th Amendment All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.  8th Amendment Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

O’Connor v. Donaldson (U.S. Supreme Court 1975)  FACTS: Mr. Donaldson civilly committed in 1957 and kept in custody for 15 years. His father initiated the commitment because his son “suffering from delusions.” Diagnosis was paranoid schizophrenia and commitment for “care, maintenance and treatment.” No evidence of danger to self or others and employed prior to commitment.  ISSUE: Was Donaldson’s continued commitment a violation of his constitutional right to liberty?  HOLDING: Yes.  REASONING/RATIONALE: Involuntary commitment is deprivation of liberty which state cannot accomplish without due process of law. Must be justified on basis of legitimate state interest and confinement must cease when those reasons no longer exist. Basis of confinement violated very fundamentals of due process when no treatment was provided.