Why the gap? Practice and policy in civil commitment hearings

Am Psychol. 1992 May;47(5):646-55. doi: 10.1037//0003-066x.47.5.646.


The failure of civil commitment procedures to meet statutory requirements is one of the more reliable findings in the applied social sciences. Most states now require specific legal procedures and behavioral standards for involuntary hospitalization. Nonetheless, empirical studies have demonstrated that commitment hearings are rarely adversarial and clinical concerns continue to take precedence over legal issues. These findings are analyzed in the context of three related issues: the grounds for commitment that are used in civil commitment hearings, the particular difficulties of recommitment hearings, and the shortcomings of the national policy of deinstitutionalization. The authors conclude that a primary cause of the gap between legal standards and actual practice is the absence of viable, less restrictive alternatives to inpatient treatment.

MeSH terms

  • Commitment of Mentally Ill / legislation & jurisprudence*
  • Deinstitutionalization / legislation & jurisprudence
  • Expert Testimony / legislation & jurisprudence
  • Health Policy / legislation & jurisprudence*
  • Humans
  • Mentally Ill Persons*
  • Patient Advocacy / legislation & jurisprudence*
  • Patient Rights
  • United States
  • Vulnerable Populations