Civil Commitment and the Violation of Civil Liberties
Having to take a mental test for whatever reason, especially for civil commitments, can be humiliating for any person, and more so for celebrities and public figures whose lives and activities are always on the public domain. But apart from the personal inconveniences, it costs the victim, in this case, the celebrity Britney Spears; it can as well be a violation of civil liberties. It is important for defenders of civil liberty to be able to recognize when this civil commitment violates a person's civil liberties. First off, it is a violation of civil liberty in the sense that it is involuntary. The American constitution protects every citizen against such acts that may be deemed forceful and inappropriate, such as forced body inspections, and involuntary mental checkups. It is sad however to note how bodies that are supposed to protect citizens against such brutalities are the ones on the forefront of advocating for the civil commitments. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) claims to be the premier American organization for the protection of civil liberties, yet it has never wavered in its support of involuntary mental hospitalization and the insanity defense ( Jackson & Roesch, 2015). The Policy Guide on Civil Commitment that was issued by a selected group of the ACLU, in fact, does more harm to the situation in that it provides for more grounds for the violations of victims and patients of mental health disorders than was there initially.
Civil commitment is the legal issue that deals with the state of having a person committed to posing a threat to themselves or society. This could include threats or attempts at suicide or the inability of the patients to care for themselves. If the person additionally threatens or attempts to harm another person or an institution, they may be committed too. Civil commitment is meant to treat the patient's mental disorder and ascertain their sanity before being freed to society. A criminal commitment of the other hand deals with the issue of the insanity of a person charged with a crime. In this case, if the accused is charged with such crime as murder or assault, and plead insanity, the may be considered mentally ill, not at the time the crime was committed, but during the trial, and as such are committed temporarily until their sanity is proven. From this point, they are fit to resume trial for the criminal allegations against them. In as much as Miss Spears showed a series of actions that might have raised questions about the state of her sanity, she was at the moment fit to stand in a court of law, and since she had not alluded or confirmed speculations surrounded sanity, it was inappropriate to subject her to a series of mental checkups involuntarily (Nakic, 2017). Civil commitments should take into consideration the opinion of the person in question unless the person is proven beyond reasonable doubt to be psychotic by extreme psychotic behaviors, which was not the case for Ms. Spears.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
What Is an Effective Civil Commitment Timeframe?
A short time commitment of about three days is not an active program to provide adequate determination about a patient's mental state. This is because some actions considered to be influenced by questionable sanity are caused by intoxication. People who abuse drugs and alcohol tend to do weird and crazy stuff when they are high and under the influence. If such a person were to be considered psychotic and committed, then 72 hours would not be enough to gauge their behavior and draw a clear line between their drunken state of mind, and their sanity as a whole that is subject to the mental check. This is so especially in cases where the drugs and substances used are so potent and take a more extended period to wear off and have the patient return to their normal state. In this case, if the person were to be committed immediately after the substance and drug abuse, then there are higher chances that during the entire 72-hour therapy, they would be in an intoxicated state of mind, and the results, therefore, would not be that adequate. On the other hand, not all patients committed to open up to the treatment from the word go. Some patients may suppress certain aspects, like become withdrawn. In this case, it takes time before the patient relaxes, opens up to allow for adequate evaluation and treatment (Nakic, 2017). In effect, the patient may be misdiagnosed, most likely declared of sound mind while in the real sense they are psychotic, and had suppressed the psychopathic tendencies. In either of these scenarios, the assessment should take a bit longer to be more accurate in their evaluation.
The Importance of Forensic Assessment
Forensic assessment (forensic psychology) is part of the broader category of psychological evaluation that is geared toward conducting, analyzing, and presenting psychological data in various legal settings. In the case of Britney Spears, the forensic assessment may have been the right tool to protect all the stakeholders involved, her included, in as much as the process itself may be questionable. It protected Britney in the sense that it provided psychological data that ascertained her dubious state of mind. In effect, the court had her committed and availed the appropriate mental care; the probation was significant in helping her regain her sanity and even got her to her feet as far as her music career is concerned. On the other hand, by ascertaining her mental disorder, the court was able to protect the children by not allowing her custody. Under such mental state, they were higher chances that the children were in danger, whether directly or indirectly ( Jackson & Roesch, 2015). The assessment ensured that they were placed under sound care. The public at large was also protected from any potential harm from the patient, such as accidents.
In conclusion, it is correct to point out that civil commitment plays a significant role in ensuring the safety of the patient, and of those around them, especially in the case of extreme psychotic tendencies that are a potential harm to the general public. However, civil commitment can also be a violation of the patient’s civil liberties, especially when the said patient is more influenced by drugs and substance abuse rather than medical mental disorders. In this case, in helping the patient, it is crucial that the importance of the commitment is explained to them and they are effectively consulted on whether or not to take such a course of action against them. If a person is capable of speaking their mind about the kind of help they want, then civil commitment should be out of their free will rather than involuntarily.
References
Jackson, R., & Roesch, R. (Eds.). (2015). Learning forensic assessment: Research and practice . Routledge.
Nakic, M. (2017). Civil Commitment and Involuntary Outpatient Commitment. In Psychiatry and the Law (pp. 63-73). Springer, Cham.
