Commentary compares state approaches for defendants who are incompetent, unrestorable and deemed dangerous
Bloom and Kirkorsky focus on the disposition of someone charged with a serious crime against another person, found incompetent and not restorable, whose charges are dismissed without prejudice but whom the state regards as dangerous. They describe three existing approaches, in California, Oregon and Ohio, all built by modifying civil commitment law.
They propose a fourth model drawn from a modified version of the 1989 American Bar Association criminal justice mental health standards, under which such individuals would be committed under the same special procedures used for insanity acquittees. The piece frames the issue against the Jackson v. Indiana line of cases and civil commitment's relationship to the criminal system.
Because the number of unrestorable defendants is a pressure point for state hospitals and prosecutors, the commentary speaks directly to the end of the restoration pipeline, where inconsistent state rules decide whether people are released, civilly committed or held.
Source: Incompetent to Stand Trial, Not Restorable, and Dangerous — Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, by Joseph D. Bloom and Scott E. Kirkorsky
← Back to the map