The submitted papers may be on empirical, moral, policy, doctrinal, or political aspects of outpatient commitment. The co-editors of the issue will be Ken Kress, Iowa School of Law, and Bruce Winick, Miami School of Law.
Outpatient commitment is both empirically and morally controversial.
The recent Bellevue study in New York City found no statistically significant differences in arrests or hospitalization days resulting from outpatient commitment, as opposed to an increased number of service interactions that may accompany outpatient commitment. By contrast, studies conducted in North Carolina reported statistically significant differences in arrest rates, and reductions in days of hospitalization for commitments in excess of 6 months. Civil libertarians argue that because it infringes autonomy, outpatient commitment should be justified only when an individual is dangerous or incapable of making rational treatment decisions. On the other hand, the North Carolina studies suggest that 6 months of commitment are necessary in order to obtain the reduction in hospitalization days, and presumably therefore in order to stabilize the consumer. Civil libertarians will urge that as soon as the individual is no longer dangerous and incompetent, state intervention is no longer justified on autonomy grounds.