Opinion ID: 1150236
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: stigma

Text: The second issue which must be resolved is whether any stigma attaches when an individual is found to be gravely disabled due to a mental disorder. Respondent argues that the public attitude toward a gravely disabled person is one of sympathy. Unfortunately, this is not completely accurate. There is compelling evidence, which this court acknowledged in Burnick, that society still views the mentally ill with suspicion. In the ideal society, the mentally ill would be the subjects of understanding and compassion rather than ignorance and aversion. But that enlightened view, unfortunately, does not yet prevail. The stigma borne by the mentally ill has frequently been identified in the literature: `a former mental patient may suffer from the social opprobrium which attaches to treatment for mental illness[ [7] ] and which may have more severe consequences than do the formally imposed disabilities. Many people have an irrational fear of the mentally ill. The former mental patient is likely to be treated with distrust and even loathing; he may be socially ostracized and victimized by employment and educational discrimination. Finally, the individual's hospitalization and posthospitalization experience may cause him to lose self-confidence and self-esteem. [¶] The legal and social consequences of commitment constitute the stigma of mental illness, a stigma that could be as socially debilitating as that of a criminal conviction.' (Fns. omitted.) ( Developments in the Law  Civil Commitment of the Mentally III (1974) 87 Harv.L.Rev. 1190, 1200-1201; accord, Rosenhan, On Being Sane in Insane Places (1973) 13 Santa Clara Law. 379, 385, and authorities cited in fn. 11.) ( People v. Burnick, supra, 14 Cal.3d 306, 321.) Recently this court recognized the stigma which attaches to an individual who is found to be mentally ill. Not only is there physical restraint [when an individual is confined in a mental hospital], but there is injury to protected interests in reputation [citations], an interest in not being improperly or unfairly stigmatized as mentally ill or disordered. ( In re Roger S., supra, 19 Cal.3d 921, 929, italics added.) Moreover, grave disability proceedings carry special threats to reputation. A finding of grave disability is equivalent to a finding that a person is unable to feed, clothe or house himself because of a mental disorder (§ 5008, subd. (h)(1)). It is implausible that a person labelled by the state as so totally ill could go about, after his release, seeking employment, applying to schools, or meeting old acquaintances with his reputation fully intact. A consistent line of cases decided by the United States Supreme Court and by this court require us to reject respondent's reliance on civil labels and to hold that since grave disability proceedings seriously put at risk both the personal liberty and the good name of the individual, the safeguard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required. ( People v. Thomas, supra, 19 Cal.3d 630, 638.)