Civil Commitment

Civil Commitment
Name
Institutional Affiliation
Civil Commitment
The United States Constitution describes civil commitment as a legal process which a person who has severe mental sickness is court-ordered into treatment in community hospitals. Additionally, civil confinement is correctly applied to convicted individuals who have been diagnosed with mental illness that disrupts their normal thinking capacity and ability to make the right decisions.Civil commitment is performed by many countries as a way protecting an individual or members of the society from released prisoners. It is believed that inmates who possess certain mental disorders are threat to other members of the society once they are released from prisons. In many states all over the world criminals especially those who abuse children have been subjected to a harsher sentencing in that they are made to stay longer in civil commitment centers. (Greenley, 1974). In the USA, there is a process that leads to civil commitment. First, the convicts are identified by the agency of state criminal justice, and then they are submitted to the office of mental health where they are mentally evaluated. Attorney General files a civil suit in that the convict needs to be highly monitored as soon as he or she is out of jail. If enough evidence of the mental illness of the prisoner, the judge rules that he or she should be confined in a psychiatric hospital.
Different states have different civil commitment laws; however, the United States Supreme Court ordered that civil commitment can only be applied in a situation whereby criminals have a mental illness that will force them to repeat the same offense once released in the society.

In states such as Virginia, prosecutors have powers to petition and put an individual a criminal commitment center when they have finished their jail term. All these are done to keep away worse criminals out of the community. For example, between the year 2010 and 2011, the number of petitions have doubled from 43 to 119. Most of the criminal subjected under commitment laws are convicted of sexual offenses such as rape. These are aimed to protect the members of the society from a similar crime in future. In this case, the civil commitment is used to reduce sexual offenses as well as protecting other people human rights. The statistic in the US has shown that most of the sexual crimes are done by individuals who have never committed such offenses in the past. These clearly demonstrate that the civil commitment laws have been able to protect members of the public. (Pinals, & Mossman, 2011)
Civil commitment provides medical attention to prisoners who have mental disorders. The psychiatrists can evaluate the prisoners and finally provide the required care. Moreover, a lot of counseling is offered to the patients for a longer period as a way of rehabilitating them. Most importantly they are taught how to relate to other members of the society.
The civil commitment also provides the opportunity to the government to follow up a criminal’s once they have completed their jail terms. The government follow up prevent the prisoner from committing the same crime in future. Again, these serve a warning to other people who may be planning to commit the same offense in future (Ford, 2014). Thus the civil commitment law does not only confine the convict but also deter others from performing similar crimes.
Critics have questioned on the legality of civil commitment saying it is unconstitutional. Additionally, they argue that it violates the rights and freedoms of the convict by keeping them longer than their sentences. Locking people after their sentences violates freedoms of movement and liberty. The civil commitment law also violates protection against arbitrary conviction and also the rights of not been punished twice for the same crime. The Civil commitment amounts to double punishment to a person for committing the same offense.
Civil commitment is a very expensive method and also a burden to the taxpayers. The majority of the states in the US are spending over $450 million annually to fund rehabilitation programs (Ford, 2014). The civil commitment programs are more expensive than keeping one in prison since it involves mental treatment of the offender. The treatment is costly and also a lot of money is used to pay professionally trained physicians. Such money could have been alternatively used to fund other sectors of the economy.
Another disadvantage of civil commitment is that it is tough to be able to determine who will commit crime at a future date. Also, the method used is questionable; predictors are bound to make errors since they look at other factors such as the number of the prior offences of the offender. Men risk of repeating the crime is rated higher when rated to their female counterparts a scenario which is not likely to be true. (Bassos, 2001).
In conclusion, it is the duty of the government to protect the members of the society at all cost. However, the government should not take it as an opportunity violates the rights of those serving sentences. The community also has a responsibility to look at other measures that they can adopt to help released prisoners so as not to repeat the crimes in future
References
Bassos, A. (2001). Civil commitment: Laws, science and solutions. Lake Oswego, OR: Oregon State Bar.
Ford, E. (2014). Civil Commitment. Landmark Cases in Forensic Psychiatry, 43-47. doi:10.1093/med/9780199344659.003.0006
Greenley, D. (1974). Civil commitment: Proposals for change. Madison, WI: Center for Public Representation.
Pinals, D. A., & Mossman, D. (2011). Report Writing and Testimony. Evaluation for Civil Commitment, 175-204. doi:10.1093/med:psych/9780195329148.003.0007
Sexual Offender Civil Commitment. (n.d.). Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement. doi:10.4135/9781412952415.n178