BIB & Teal colour mine:
Sorry to cross threads but I was trying to write this reply and apologise to you in stops and starts over the day between other duties an trying to play catch-up but the mods shut the thread "temporarily for review" when I was near to posting in the early hours before I went to bed. Today I see the closure was permanent so I hope you don't mind my posting the reply here.
Respectfully you appear to have either misunderstood my post or the purpose of the Court Order that Masipa handed down on Tuesday (others seem to misunderstand its purpose too!). I mean, not wanting to be rude, but WTH does an "Involuntary Civil Commitment" ("ICC"), under SA's Mental Health Care Act (MHCA), have to do with this order under the SA Criminal Procedure Act (CPA) for OP to undergo what is commonly called a "Mental State at Time of Offence Evaluation" ("MSO" or "MSE-Offence"), the exact limitations of which are very clear ?:
Contrary to what I think you are inferring by noting, "Not every state even allows for outpatient commitment.", OP has neither been civilly nor criminally committed... not even on an outpatient basis! He has not even been ordered to undergo an evaluation to ascertain whether he should be committed, whether for treatment, rehabilitation, or as a restraint from being a danger to himself or others. OP has merely been ordered to attend a psychiatric hospital 5 days a week at set, albeit eminently flexible, times and undergo a psychiatric evaluation whose sole purpose is to assist the court in determining whether he is entitled to either an "insanity defence" (legal insanity not medical insanity) or a mitigation plea by way of his state of mind "at the time of the commission of the offence", which is a "Mental State at Time of Offence Evaluation", and the same procedure I was referring to in my post and which I have been describing here since the ruling last week, both from my own personal experience through my voluntary work over many years, as well as from my research.
Unlike an "involuntary civil commitment" a "Mental State at Time of Offence Evaluation " is not normally on an inpatient basis in the UK, US, Canada, or any country with minimally up to date mental health laws; not unless the subject is suspected of being a danger to themselves or others, in which case committal, a very intrusive and restrictive measure modern mental health legislation only permits when absolutely necessary, is justifiable to assess that risk, but not for an "MSO" on its own, for which there is no need whatsoever for 24/7 observation as the evaluation format is based on interviews, tests, and research into past history, court docs, etc. Nor would internment be justifiable except in unavoidable circumstances under most modern mental health legislation, including that of SA whose "Mental Health Care Act", (in force since 2004), is considered one of the more progressive in questions of mental health issues in the world. That said, OP's suitability to remain in the community safely is clearly not in issue, otherwise the court would have ordered his committal and an enquiry into whether he was a danger to himself or others, so I think it safe to assume that an "involuntary commitment", whether civil or criminal, is neither applicable nor relevant to OP's "Mental State at Time of Offence Evaluation", at least not at this time, and as I see it will never be.
OTOH, if I misunderstood your reference to "involuntary civil committal" in respect of the evaluation order, please accept my apology but in which case I would still like to know of states you know of that legally oblige inpatient "MSOs", as it is of personal interest to me as I have not found any unless where there are grounds to believe the subject is a danger to themselves or others, where an accused is in prison, or where there are no psychiatric facilities near an accused on bail so an inpatient basis can be ordered for convenience.
In respect of your 2nd point, I absolutely agree that you should take issue with those of us who in your words are "comparing 50 country's laws to that of one", grouping all laws under one loose term, i.e. "in the US". You are right and it is a wrong for which as a "pecador" I apologise, more especially because I should know better as I am well aware that each State has their own laws, whether simply nuanced from those of other states or vastly different as is often the case.
That said, just a few words in my, and possibly others', defence. It may be we unfairly generalise because US laws that hit the headlines here do so because they don't fit with our traditions or with principles set out in our laws, e.g., torture, SYG, death penalty, life sentences without possibility of parole, GBMI verdicts and in some states the abolition of the insanity defence, these last of particular concern to me in view of my voluntary work. And I think the generalisation may be exacerbated by the perception that controversial laws, (controversial here of course!), appear to spread so that other states seem to often follow suit giving the impression, wrongly or rightly, that implementation across all States is inevitable. Nonetheless, you are right and I should not generalise so I will try hard to refrain from doing so in the future. Again my apologies to you and others of the US for any unintended offence caused.
JMHOSNNFS,I,OR
