88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
Florida No Longer Allowed To Lock Mentally Disabled People Up For Decades Without Checking On Them
BY IAN MILLHISER
OCT 16, 2015 12:01PM
CREDIT: SHUTTERSTOCK
Florida law permitted the state to involuntarily commit intellectually disabled people to a mental institution, and then leave them there for years without ever reviewing whether the person they committed still needs to be institutionalized. Under a decision handed down by a federal appeals court on Thursday, however, that is no longer the case. As the Court explains in its decision, the Constitution requires “periodic review” of whether each individual confined to an institution belongs there by someone with the authority to order that individual released.
The case centers around a plaintiff identified only as “J.R.,” an intellectually disabled man who “functions as a seven-year old.” J.R.’s IQ is 56.
Fifteen years ago, J.R. was charged with sexual battery, but he was never tried because a court found him incompetent to stand trial. Instead, J.R. was involuntarily committed to a residential mental facility by a court order that contains no end date. Under Florida law, the only entity that can order him released is the court that originally ordered him committed. That court has no obligation to conduct periodic reviews of whether J.R. belongs in a mental institution and, indeed, it has not conducted such a hearing since 2005.
According to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, this is not allowed. “A state must release a person who is involuntarily committed if the grounds for his commitment cease to exist,” Judge Beverly Martin explained in her opinion on behalf of a two-judge panel. That constitutional requirement, however, “is toothless if a state does not periodically review whether the grounds for commitment are met.”
Specifically, Judge Martin notes, J.R. was committed under a law that permits the institutionalization of people who lack “‘basic survival and self-care skills to such a degree that close supervision and habilitation in a residential setting is necessary and, if not provided, would result in a real and present threat of substantial harm to the person’s well-being’ or would leave the person ‘likely to physically injure others if allowed to remain at liberty.’” J.R. may very well have presented a danger to others at the time of his confinement, but he has now lived more than a decade in a facility where he could learn coping and socialization skills that may eliminate that danger. He’s also been convicted of no crime.
At the very least, Martin’s opinion establishes, he should not remain confined forever because no one has bothered to look into whether his commitment can still be justified.
Florida No Longer Allowed To Lock Mentally Disabled People Up For Decades Without Checking On Them
BY IAN MILLHISER
OCT 16, 2015 12:01PM
CREDIT: SHUTTERSTOCK
Florida law permitted the state to involuntarily commit intellectually disabled people to a mental institution, and then leave them there for years without ever reviewing whether the person they committed still needs to be institutionalized. Under a decision handed down by a federal appeals court on Thursday, however, that is no longer the case. As the Court explains in its decision, the Constitution requires “periodic review” of whether each individual confined to an institution belongs there by someone with the authority to order that individual released.
The case centers around a plaintiff identified only as “J.R.,” an intellectually disabled man who “functions as a seven-year old.” J.R.’s IQ is 56.
Fifteen years ago, J.R. was charged with sexual battery, but he was never tried because a court found him incompetent to stand trial. Instead, J.R. was involuntarily committed to a residential mental facility by a court order that contains no end date. Under Florida law, the only entity that can order him released is the court that originally ordered him committed. That court has no obligation to conduct periodic reviews of whether J.R. belongs in a mental institution and, indeed, it has not conducted such a hearing since 2005.
According to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, this is not allowed. “A state must release a person who is involuntarily committed if the grounds for his commitment cease to exist,” Judge Beverly Martin explained in her opinion on behalf of a two-judge panel. That constitutional requirement, however, “is toothless if a state does not periodically review whether the grounds for commitment are met.”
Specifically, Judge Martin notes, J.R. was committed under a law that permits the institutionalization of people who lack “‘basic survival and self-care skills to such a degree that close supervision and habilitation in a residential setting is necessary and, if not provided, would result in a real and present threat of substantial harm to the person’s well-being’ or would leave the person ‘likely to physically injure others if allowed to remain at liberty.’” J.R. may very well have presented a danger to others at the time of his confinement, but he has now lived more than a decade in a facility where he could learn coping and socialization skills that may eliminate that danger. He’s also been convicted of no crime.
At the very least, Martin’s opinion establishes, he should not remain confined forever because no one has bothered to look into whether his commitment can still be justified.
Florida No Longer Allowed To Lock Mentally Disabled People Up For Decades Without Checking On Them