Donaldson revisited: is dangerousness a constitutional requirement for civil commitment?

Mental Health - United States ex rel. Mathew v. Nelson - Civil Commitment of the Mentally Ill Based on a Finding of Dangerousness Is Constitutional, Even Though Dangerousness Is Not Inferred from a Recent, Overt Dangerous Act

The prediction of violent behavior during short-term civil commitment.

The predictive validity of the clinical judgment of dangerousness in the context of short-term civil commitment was studied prospectively by comparing the behavioral scale ratings of both verbal and physical aggression between 37 persons committed on the basis of "danger to others" versus 31 persons committed on other grounds. No statistically significant difference was found between these two ...

Civil commitment in the psychiatric emergency room. II. Mental disorder indicators and three dangerousness criteria.

Proponents of return to a "need for treatment" standard for civil commitment contend that the current dangerousness standard forces psychiatrists to neglect severely ill patients in favor of those who are less ill but dangerous to others. Among 198 psychiatric emergency patients in five facilities, those rated as most dangerous on Three Ratings of Involuntary Admissibility, a reliable index of ...

Overt dangerous behavior as a constitutional requirement for involuntary civil commitment of the mentally ill.

Civil commitment--the American experience.

The evolution of U.S. civil commitment law needs to be understood within the context of changes in psychiatry and medicine, as well as larger social policy and economic changes. American civil commitment law has reflected the swinging pendulum of social attitudes towards civil commitment, oscillating between more and less restriction for both procedural and substantive standards. These standard...