Home Duke University Press
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     
  Home | Help | Feedback | Subscriptions | Archive | Search | Table of Contents


Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 1996 21(4):769-804; DOI:10.1215/03616878-21-4-769
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Aviram, U.
Right arrow Articles by Weyer, R. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Duke University Press

Changing Trends in Mental Health Legislation: Anatomy of Reforming a Civil Commitment Law

Uri Aviram
Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Robert A. Weyer
County College of Morris, New Jersey

In this article, we discuss changing trends of mental health legislation in the United States using a case study of the process of reforming the civil commitment law in New Jersey. That state’s new commitment law, commonly called the "screening law," was enacted after a thirteen-year legislative process. Changes in the orientation of the proposed legislation and the dynamics of the process of reforming the commitment law in the state exemplify changing national trends in civil commitment legislation. We consider how the proposed legislation shifted in emphasis from a strong civil libertarian orientation to a social service approach. We assess the role of various interest groups, their negotiations, and the compromises that emerged. Our analysis of the process shows that changes in the social and political environment were the decisive factors that stimulated the process of reforming the civil commitment laws. Many of these changes occurred outside the mental health system and could be neither anticipated nor controlled by the various parties. Our examination of the process and the final outcome of this legislation reveals how organizations and interest groups, in their efforts to adapt to changing conditions, shaped the legislative outcome according to their interests.







  Home | Help | Feedback | Subscriptions | Archive | Search | Table of Contents


Copyright 1996 by Duke University Press