U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

NOTES ON DEFINING THE 'DANGEROUSNESS' OF THE MENTALLY ILL (FROM DANGEROUS BEHAVIOR - A PROBLEM IN LAW AND MENTAL HEALTH, 1978, BY CALVIN J FREDERICK - SEE NCJ-54290)

NCJ Number
54292
Author(s)
A D BROOKS
Date Published
1978
Length
24 pages
Annotation
THE CONSEQUENCES OF A LEGAL DETERMINATION THAT A PERSON IS MENTALLY ILL AND DANGEROUS ARE REVIEWED. NEW APPROACHES FOR DETERMINING DANGEROUSNESS WHICH PROTECT CIVIL RIGHTS ARE SUGGESTED.
Abstract
THE LEGAL DETERMINATION THAT A MENTALLY ILL PERSON IS DANGEROUS CAN HAVE DRASTIC CONSEQUENCES. IT MAY MEAN A LENGTHY INVOLUNTARY CONFINEMENT IN A CIVIL MENTAL HOSPITAL OR A TRANSFER TO A HOSPITAL FOR THE CRIMINALLY INSANE (EVEN THOUGH NO CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED), AND IN SOME STATES THE PERSON MAY BE SENT TO PRISON EVEN THOUGH GUILTY OF NO OFFENSE. FOR THE MENTALLY ILL OFFENDER THE CONSEQUENCES CAN BE EVEN MORE SEVERE, INCLUDING INDETERMINATE CONFINEMENT REGARDLESS OF SEVERITY OF OFFENSE, UNAUTHORIZED DRUG TREATMENT, AND CONFINEMENT IN A MAXIMUM SECURITY FACILITY REGARDLESS OF SEVERITY OF OFFENSE. THIS PAPER EXAMINES THE DEFINITION OF 'DANGEROUSNESS,' THE PREDICTION OF DANGEROUSNESS, HOW MUCH SO-CALLED DANGEROUSNESS SOCIETY SHOULD TOLERATE, AND THE PROCEDURES USED TO DETERMINE DANGEROUSNESS. BEFORE THE EARLY 1970'S DANGEROUSNESS WAS NEITHER PRECISELY DEFINED NOR CAREFULLY DETERMINED. THEN A NUMBER OF LANDMARK CASES LIMITED A COURT'S AUTHORITY TO DEPRIVE A MENTALLY ILL PERSON OF LIBERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS. THESE JUDICIAL DECISIONS ARE REVIEWED IN DETAIL. PREVIOUS PROCEDURES USED TO DETERMINE DANGEROUSNESS ARE THEN CRITIQUED. EXAMPLES OF PERFUNCTORY PSYCHIATRIC TESTIMONY ARE GIVEN, AS FOUND IN COURT TRANSCRIPTS. THE EFFECTS OF THE GREATER ATTENTION TO DUE PROCESS ON THE PSYCHIATRIC PROFESSION ARE EXAMINED. LEGISLATION IN IOWA, MASSACHUSETTS, AND PENNSYLVANIA WHICH DEFINES 'DANGEROUSNESS TO SELF' AND 'DANGEROUSNESS TO OTHERS' IS REVIEWED. FINALLY, TWO DECISIONS FROM THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT COURT ARE OFFERED AS EXAMPLES OF DUE REGARD BEING SHOWN FOR THE OFFENDER AND FOR SOCIETY. THE ARTICLE CONTAINS FOOTNOTES, AND REFERENCES ARE PROVIDED. (GLR)