Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.
Responsibility for the civil commitment process currently is shared between the justice and mental health systems. Neither system, however, owes substantial loyalty to the goals of civil commitment. The result, as documented in numerous empirical studies, is that the ostensible goals of the process are routinely subverted in favor of other systemic interests. Most reform efforts to date, focused on altering legal rules to conform to doctrinal desiderata, have ignored this problem, leading to uneven and disappointing outcomes. A systems perspective on these problems suggests that one means of dealing with systems whose loyalty to a task is questionable is to create an independent system with the incentives to give primacy to the task in question. The implications of this analysis for civil commitment are explored.
Law and Human Behavior – American Psychological Association
Published: Feb 1, 1992
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.