|
Dr. Wade Silverman, Ph.D | home
The Baker Act: Civil Commitment in Florida
Melton, Petrila, Poythress, and Slobogin (1987) note that civil commitment is ultimately a "legal-moral decision" rather than a psychological one (p. 234). The expert retained in a Baker Act proceeding should present evidence concerning the client's behavior, his/her treatment needs, and potential treatment resources. Commitment evaluation focuses on four major areas: (1) mental illness and treatment, (2) dangerousness to self, (3) grave disability or inability to care for self, (4) dangerousness to others.
The decision as to whether an individual is so mentally ill as to require committment must be weighed against suspension of individual freedom. Is the client so severely mentally ill that he/she cannot decide what is the proper treatment? Even if this answer is affirmative, a psychiatric ward may not be the best place for treatment.
It is common knowledge that dangerousness to self, particularly suicide, is almost impossible to predict on an individual basis. Assessing the ability to care for one's self, must be anchored in a description of specific survival skills that the client cannot perform. Also, the expert must consider alternatives to hospitalization as a remedy for protecting the client.
Dangerousness to others is as difficult to predict as suicidal behavior. John Monahan (1981) suggests that the evaluation of dangerousness should first identify whether the individual has homicidal motives, plans, and means. The expert must determine the situational circumstances that have caused past violent acts and whether these circumstances are likely to reoccur in the immediate future. Finally, the expert must ascertain what controls are available to the individual to reduce the likelihood of violent behavior. When it comes to civil commitment there are no easy answers, but the use of a psychologist may provide valuable insight as to whether a person should be Baker Acted.
|