Bill Description: House Bill 614 would make it easier to involuntarily commit someone who has been found incompetent to stand trial. It would also expand what conditions can be used to justify involuntary commitment.
Rating: -2
Does it violate the spirit or the letter of either the United States Constitution or the Idaho Constitution? Examples include restrictions on speech, public assembly, the press, privacy, private property, or firearms. Conversely, does it restore or uphold the protections guaranteed in the US Constitution or the Idaho Constitution?
House Bill 614 would amend sections 66-317, 66-329, 66-402, and 66-406, Idaho Code, to make it easier to involuntarily commit someone who has been found incompetent to stand trial.
It would state that “a judicial finding in any currently pending criminal proceeding that a defendant is unfit and there is not a substantial probability the defendant will be fit to proceed within the foreseeable future or if the defendant is not fit to proceed after the expiration of the additional one hundred eighty (180) days, pursuant to section 18-212, Idaho Code, shall create a rebuttable presumption” that the person is “gravely disabled” and is “unable to meet essential requirements for physical health or safety.”
This assertion is excessive. There are cases where a judge may determine that someone’s reduced mental capacity renders them unfit for trial, but they still pose no meaningful danger to themselves or others. Additionally, “any currently pending criminal proceeding” is incredibly broad and includes many minor and non-violent offenses.
The bill would also significantly expand the scope of conditions for which one can be involuntarily committed. Current law says that someone cannot be involuntarily committed because they have a neurological disorder, neurocognitive disorder, or medical disorder that includes psychiatric symptomology unless they are also “mentally ill”. The bill would remove these protections, allowing such individuals to face involuntary commitment based on the disorder alone.
Note that this change is separate from the criminal proceedings discussed above, and could apply to someone who has not been charged with any crime.
Involuntary commitment restricts an individual’s most fundamental rights, and it should only be applied under extreme circumstances where no reasonable alternative exists.
(-1)
Does it create, expand, or enlarge any agency, board, program, function, or activity of government? Conversely, does it eliminate or curtail the size or scope of government?
Beyond the restrictions of individual liberty inherent in involuntary commitment, these changes also serve to expand the scope of government and particularly the Department of Health and Welfare.
The bill’s statement of purpose attempts to justify expanding the scope of conditions for which one can be involuntarily committed by saying it “recognizes that resources for finding permanent placements for people suffering from neurocognitive disorders vary greatly throughout the state and provides for a viable alternative to keep the patient and the community safe while more permanent placement options are explored, particularly in rural communities with smaller hospitals or fewer medical professionals.”
And the bill’s fiscal note acknowledges that the bill “will potentially lead to additional commitments to state custody” and posits the department will “submit these budget impacts in future budget requests…”
Framing extreme measures such as involuntary commitment as a “viable alternative” to appropriate healthcare is concerning for many reasons, including the heavy-handed intrusion of government into matters that are best handled by families and communities.
(-1)
