Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Civil Commitment Hearing

Abstract

Because civil commitment results in a massive deprivation of liberty, a hearing is required as a matter of due process. Due process contemplates a fairly elaborate adversarial judicial hearing. In practice, however, the civil commitment hearing often is an empty ritual in which the lawyer relaxes her adversarial role and the judge reaches a foregone conclusion after a brief proceeding lasting only minutes. This article uses the approach of therapeutic jurisprudence to criticize this practice and to suggest ways in which the civil commitment hearing can be reformed so as to maximize its therapeutic potential. Judges, lawyers, and testifying clinicians can play their roles differently to provide the individual with a greater sense of voice, validation, dignity, and respect. This will produce greater satisfaction by the individual and increased compliance with the court's ultimate decision, and should enhance the efficacy of any hospitalization that is ordered.