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. However, proponents of outpatient commitment will argue that consumers will be competent, autonomous agents for a greater percentage of time overall, and remain out of the hospital longer, if we violate consumers' current autonomy or expressed wishes, for the sake of greater autonomy in the future.
Outpatient commitment is also a politically controversial topic.
The controversy in New York over the passage of Kendra's Law, an outpatient treatment statute named after Kendra Webdale, who was pushed to her death by a man who suffers from severe schizophrenia, is the most widely publicized recent example. During the bill's consideration, articles on it were daily fare in New York newspapers. Two New York trial courts have found Kendra's Law constitutional, and no doubt the issue will come before appellate courts soon. Next year, there are likely to be outpatient commitment bills in California and several other states.