Due Process in Civil Commitments

55 Pages Posted: 24 Jun 2010 Last revised: 12 Nov 2014

See all articles by Alexander Tsesis

Alexander Tsesis

Florida State University College of Law

Date Written: June 24, 2010

Abstract

One of the Roberts Court's most controversial cases, United States v. Comstock (2010), expanded the powers of mental health workers to indefinitely commit patients. The majority in that case found an intermediate level of judicial proof constitutionally sufficient to intern persons under the federal civil commitment statute. The law provides for the post-sentencing confinement of anyone proven by “clear and convincing evidence” to be mentally ill and dangerous. The statute relies on a standard established by the Court more than thirty years before. The majority in Comstock missed the opportunity to reassess its earlier holding in light of recent psychiatric studies indicating that the ambiguity of available diagnostic tools can lead to erroneous insanity assessments and mistaken evaluations about patients’ likelihood to engage in dangerous activities.

In this article, I contend that the “clear and convincing standard” of proof inadequately protects patients’ due process rights because civil commitment hearings can result in severe deprivations of liberty. The beyond a reasonable doubt standard of proof, more commonly associated with criminal cases, is in order because it requires a closer evaluation of the facts, law, and constitutional norms. The multidisciplinary approach I pursue offers a unique framework for resolving a social problem that has been inadequately described in extant legal and psychiatric writings. I reflect on Supreme Court precedents in light of psychiatric studies about the limited reliability of emergency commitments and set out a standard adopted from criminal proceedings to better prevent unnecessary mental hospitalization.

Part 1 of the article sets out some of the core problems with the current standard for civil commitment. Part 2 surveys Supreme Court precedents on the topic. Part 3 discusses state statutory schemes for involuntary mental hospitalization, while Part 4 describes the current state of sexual violent predator statutes. Part 5 delves into professional psychiatric literature about the ambiguity of psychiatric diagnoses. Part 6 synthesizes the article’s findings to identify the appropriate burden of proof required to prevent the wrongful infringement on patients’ due process rights.

Keywords: Mental illness, constitutional law, Necessary and Proper Clause, United States v. Comstock, civil commitment hearings, due process, involuntary mental hospitalization, patients' rights

JEL Classification: I18, K10, K30, K32, K41

Suggested Citation

Tsesis, Alexander, Due Process in Civil Commitments (June 24, 2010). Washington and Lee Law Review, Vol. 68, 2011, Loyola University Chicago School of Law Research Paper No. 2010-007, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1629837

Alexander Tsesis (Contact Author)

Florida State University College of Law ( email )

425 W Jefferson St
Tallahassee, FL 32301
United States

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
290
Abstract Views
1,594
Rank
191,529
PlumX Metrics