Psychology: Legal Standard of Proof
Throughout this section, we have emphasized that involuntary hospitalization
involves a significant deprivation of liberty. The degree of deprivation
may vary: some patients are permitted freedom on the hospital grounds,
while others are locked into the ward, day and night. But even those in the
former group experience a restriction on their liberty, in that they must be in
the hospital rather than elsewhere. In order to so restrict a person's freedom
one must prove that, in accord with the law, they belong in a psychiatric hospital.
Mere allegation is insufficient. What standard of proof should be required?
Generally speaking, three standards of proof are available in law:
preponderance of evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt,
and clear and convincing proof.
* Lessard v. Schmidt, 349 F. Supp. 1078 (E.D. Wis. 1972).
The Wisconsin court's judgment was vacated by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1974,
on procedural rather than substantive grounds. (Ibid, p. 1089).
Often called the 51 percent standard, the preponderance of evidence standard
requires just enough proof to shift the weight of evidence to one side.
This is the standard used in civil cases, where penalties are often monetary
and do not involve deprivation of liberty.
Beyond a reasonable doubt is the most severe standard of proof and requires
that the evidence be so compelling as to convince a reasonable listener
beyond a reasonable doubt. This standard is used in criminal law,
where the presumption of a defendant's innocence is very strong, and the
costs of wrongful incarceration of an innocent person high indeed. It is often
termed the 90 percent or 99 percent standard, implying that the weight of
evidence must be such that people would be willing to stake high odds on the
guilt of the defendant.
Clear and convincing proof is an intermediate standard that is not quite
so severe as that requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but not as lenient
as the 51 percent standard that requires the mere preponderance of evidence.
Consider it the 75 percent standard.
Recalling what you have read here regarding the validity of predictions of
dangerousness, and what you have learned in Chapter 9 on the reliability
and validity of psychiatric diagnoses generally, what standard of proof
should be invoked in order to commit a person involuntarily? In 1979, the
matter-was taken up by the Supreme Court in Addington v. Texas. *
Frank O'Neal Addington had been hospitalized seven times between 1967 and
1975. His mother now petitioned the court to have him involuntarily committed
because he was both dangerous to himself and dangerous to others. In accord with
Texas law, a jury trial was held to determine if he required hospitalization. The
judge instructed the jury to determine whether there was "clear, unequivocal and
convincing evidence"-the 75 percent standard-that Addington was mentally
ill and required hospitalization for his protection and for the safety of others. The
jury so found, but Addington appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court on
the grounds that the appropriate standard of proof should have been a tougher
one-beyond a reasonable doubt-the 90 percent standard.
The Supreme Court held that the 90 percent standard was simply too severe.
Given the uncertainties of psychiatric diagnosis and prediction, requiring proof
beyond a reasonable doubt would render the state unable to commit many' truly
distressed people who were much in need of treatment. The preponderance of evidence
standard, on the other hand, was much too lenient. If the state wanted to
deprive a person of liberty, it needed to bear a greater burden of proof than that
implied in the 51 percent standard. The Supreme Court therefore upheld the original
decision, maintaining that the presentation of clear and convincing evidence
-roughly 75 percent certainty-is the minimum standard for involuntary
commitment and that states may not commit below this minimum standard
(though they are free to fix standards that are higher than this required minimum).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Looking for treatment?
If you are ready to schedule a FREE Consultation...
I encourage you to access this website
for the treatment I recommend here:
http://www.TheLiberatorMethod.com/
involves a significant deprivation of liberty. The degree of deprivation
may vary: some patients are permitted freedom on the hospital grounds,
while others are locked into the ward, day and night. But even those in the
former group experience a restriction on their liberty, in that they must be in
the hospital rather than elsewhere. In order to so restrict a person's freedom
one must prove that, in accord with the law, they belong in a psychiatric hospital.
Mere allegation is insufficient. What standard of proof should be required?
Generally speaking, three standards of proof are available in law:
preponderance of evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt,
and clear and convincing proof.
* Lessard v. Schmidt, 349 F. Supp. 1078 (E.D. Wis. 1972).
The Wisconsin court's judgment was vacated by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1974,
on procedural rather than substantive grounds. (Ibid, p. 1089).
Often called the 51 percent standard, the preponderance of evidence standard
requires just enough proof to shift the weight of evidence to one side.
This is the standard used in civil cases, where penalties are often monetary
and do not involve deprivation of liberty.
Beyond a reasonable doubt is the most severe standard of proof and requires
that the evidence be so compelling as to convince a reasonable listener
beyond a reasonable doubt. This standard is used in criminal law,
where the presumption of a defendant's innocence is very strong, and the
costs of wrongful incarceration of an innocent person high indeed. It is often
termed the 90 percent or 99 percent standard, implying that the weight of
evidence must be such that people would be willing to stake high odds on the
guilt of the defendant.
Clear and convincing proof is an intermediate standard that is not quite
so severe as that requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but not as lenient
as the 51 percent standard that requires the mere preponderance of evidence.
Consider it the 75 percent standard.
Recalling what you have read here regarding the validity of predictions of
dangerousness, and what you have learned in Chapter 9 on the reliability
and validity of psychiatric diagnoses generally, what standard of proof
should be invoked in order to commit a person involuntarily? In 1979, the
matter-was taken up by the Supreme Court in Addington v. Texas. *
Frank O'Neal Addington had been hospitalized seven times between 1967 and
1975. His mother now petitioned the court to have him involuntarily committed
because he was both dangerous to himself and dangerous to others. In accord with
Texas law, a jury trial was held to determine if he required hospitalization. The
judge instructed the jury to determine whether there was "clear, unequivocal and
convincing evidence"-the 75 percent standard-that Addington was mentally
ill and required hospitalization for his protection and for the safety of others. The
jury so found, but Addington appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court on
the grounds that the appropriate standard of proof should have been a tougher
one-beyond a reasonable doubt-the 90 percent standard.
The Supreme Court held that the 90 percent standard was simply too severe.
Given the uncertainties of psychiatric diagnosis and prediction, requiring proof
beyond a reasonable doubt would render the state unable to commit many' truly
distressed people who were much in need of treatment. The preponderance of evidence
standard, on the other hand, was much too lenient. If the state wanted to
deprive a person of liberty, it needed to bear a greater burden of proof than that
implied in the 51 percent standard. The Supreme Court therefore upheld the original
decision, maintaining that the presentation of clear and convincing evidence
-roughly 75 percent certainty-is the minimum standard for involuntary
commitment and that states may not commit below this minimum standard
(though they are free to fix standards that are higher than this required minimum).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Looking for treatment?
If you are ready to schedule a FREE Consultation...
I encourage you to access this website
for the treatment I recommend here:
http://www.TheLiberatorMethod.com/