Home
National Association for Rights Protection & Advocacy (NARPA) Conference 2012
Document Actions
EXCLUSIVE FOR MINDFREEDOM: In the last few years, many laws in USA States have been passed making it far easier to commit people in psychiatric institutions. Supposedly one has to be dangerous to self and others. But some groups with funding from the psychiatric drug industry have promoted laws vastly expanding that definition. For instance, some states have passed laws that, essentially, an unscientific prediction that a person will "deteriorate" without forced treatment is enough to justify commitment. Here is analysis of the decision by two attorneys.
Illinois Appellate Court Finds New Commitment Law Unconstitutional
Date Published:
Author: MindFreedom
Source: MFI
To download a PDF of the Illinois Appellate Court decision, click here:
Illinois Appellate Court Appleton Decision on Torski C.
Analysis by Patricia Werner
The Illinois
Appellate Court, 4th
District, declared Illinois’ new civil commitment standard facially
unconstitutional. The new standard, which sets forth a definition of
dangerous conduct, lowered the threshold for involuntary commitment
to the point that it allowed for a deprivation of liberty without a
sufficiently compelling state interest, according to the court.
Specifically, the statute allows for commitment when a person with a
mental illness is reasonably expected to deteriorate to the point
that he is reasonably expected to engage in dangerous conduct,
defined as threatening behavior or conduct that places another
individual in reasonable expectation of harm.
Whether the state
has a sufficient interest in confining a person alleged to be
mentally ill depends on the level of dangerousness the person
presents. The current statute however, fails to provide guidance as
to the magnitude of the harm. Instead, according to the court, the
new standard would seem to allow commitment for virtually any
conceivable harm, be it “psychological, emotional or financial
harm, regardless of severity.”
The new
commitment standard, which became effective June 1, 2008, was enacted
by the legislature after family members of persons with mental
illness were unable to obtain help for their loved ones. Opponents of
the legislation, including the Guardianship and Advocacy Commission’s
Legal Advocacy Service, testified against the new statute. The
proposed language, opponents argued, was unconstitutionally vague and
set the bar so low as to violate the United State’s Supreme Court’s
1975 decision in O’Connor v. Donaldson which made clear the state
cannot constitutionally confine a person who is dangerous to no one
and who can survive safely in freedom. In addition, opponents argued
that the difficulty in obtaining help was attributable to other
forces such as a lack of available services and a general
misunderstanding of the previous standard.
The Legal
Advocacy Service of the Guardianship and Advocacy Commission has
filed appeals in the Second and Third Appellate Courts challenging
the law. Today’s decision was the first opinion addressing the
constitutionality of the new standard.
Analysis by Jim Gottstein
The decision is important because it is another appellate court taking the constitutional rights of people labeled with mental illness seriously. I say, "another" appellate court because most of the appellate courts considering these issues do tend to take them seriously when they get these cases, unlike the trial courts. Unfortunately, appeals are filed a minuscule percentage of the time the constitutional rights of people labeled with mental illness are ignored by the trial courts. This has led to the current situation where people's rights in these cases are violated as a matter of course.
So, it is very important that when an appellate court has a chance to decide on such a case and, as here, ruled the statute unconstitutional. The court ruled the statute unconstitutional because people can be locked up under it without the state proving the person is a serious danger to self or others. What needs to happen is for people's rights to be vigorously defended by their lawyers in every case as happened in this appeal in order for these types of cases to bring about real change. There is also another very important aspect of the decision, which is the Illinois Court of Appeals recognized the constitutional principle that the state has to use the least restrictive alternative (p 18). PsychRights has always suggested this right is a means to force states to provide humane, helpful approaches, rather than the coercive, counterproductive approach used now.
Apparently because the Court of Appeals invalidated a state statute, the Illinois Supreme Court will end up hearing the appeal so we should all stay tuned for that.
