Tucson massacre would not have occurred in 1974

In 1974 a close college friend of the Watchdog began acting in a manic manner so alarming to his wife and others that police were summoned and the friend was held without his consent in the Norristown Mental Hospital for several weeks until his problem (then called “manic depression” and now “bi-polar condition”) was diagnosed, medication prescribed (“lithium”) and he was deemed safe to return to society. He returned to college, obtained a law degree, and more or less supported himself and family despite occasional setbacks for the next three decades until dementia set in.

All that was required for involuntary incarceration and treatment was the request and testimony of two persons of someone’s bizarre behavior.

In those days there were institutions where paranoid schizophrenics and other so called “crazies” were locked up and largely forgotten for the rest of their lives, subject to lack of treatment and squalid conditions.

To redress the capriciousness and unfairness of treatment of those deemed mentally ill, state laws were modified and in Addington v. Texas in 1979 a United States Supreme Court ruling raised the standard for involuntary treatment by requiring strong evidence that the person was a clear cut endangerment to others.  (See excerpt from “Wikipedia” below.)

Since then we encounter the often homeless wandering through downtowns in America, especially in major cities, evidencing hostility, personal neglect, and often angry mutterings without any relevance to their surroundings. City wise folk know to simply ignore them because an encounter can become most unpleasant.

From today’s  New York Time’s report concerning Jared Laughner, it seems clear that at an earlier era he would have been committed for observation, treatment, and possibly long term incarceration in a mental hospital.

Were the laws and practices better then?  There was much abuse and unnecessary and counter-productive institutionalization.   Are the laws and practices now good enough?  The Tucson tragedy suggests otherwise.   Perhaps the pendulum has swung too far and the Supreme Court needs to revisit and revise its past decision.

“Involuntary commitment is governed by state law and procedures vary from state to state. In some jurisdictions, laws regarding the commitment of juveniles may vary, with what is the de facto involuntary commitment of a juvenile perhaps de jure defined as “voluntary” if his parents agree, though he may still have a right to protest and attempt to get released. However, there is a body of case law governing the civil commitment of individuals under the Fourteenth Amendment through U.S. Supreme Court rulings beginning with Addington v. Texas in 1979 which set the bar for involuntary commitment for treatment by raising the burden of proof required to commit persons from the usual civil burden of proof of “preponderance of the evidence” to the higher standard of “clear and convincing” evidence.[22]

“In 1975, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that involuntary hospitalization and/or treatment violates an individual’s civil rights in O’Connor v. Donaldson. This ruling forced individual states to change their statutes. For example, the individual must be exhibiting behavior that is a danger to himself or others in order to be held, the hold must be for evaluation only and a court order must be received for more than very short term treatment or hospitalization (typically no longer than 72 hours). This ruling has severely limited involuntary treatment and hospitalization in the U.S.[23] In the U.S. the specifics of the relevant statutes vary from state to state.[24]”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_commitment