Abstract
The Community, Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment Act (CARE) subjects Californians with schizophrenia and related disorders to a grueling, invasive, and coercive court process that strips them of their fundamental rights. Worse yet, CARE forces people into this process for no reason because involuntary outpatient commitment does not work to reduce hospitalization, increase compliance with medication, or improve treatment outcomes. CARE is not only unconstitutional—it is morally objectionable. This Note first analyzes how CARE violates the due process clause by subjecting individuals who are not dangerous to themselves or others to a court proceeding and to potential involuntary commitment. Then, it analyzes CARE through the lens of Therapeutic Jurisprudence (TJ). This method of legal reasoning utilizes the social sciences to facilitate a consequentialist perspective on the law. Specifically, TJ aims to minimize non-therapeutic outcomes by prioritizing dignity and autonomy. This Note compares other Involuntary Outpatient Commitment (IOC) programs in other countries and states to CARE. This comparison reveals that, like other IOC programs, CARE fails to prioritize dignity and autonomy appropriately and thus will produce non-therapeutic outcomes. These outcomes will ultimately harm the individuals subject to CARE because the process will rob them of their decision-making capacity. Forced treatment of any kind is an ineffective means of ensuring success.
Recommended Citation
Samantha Moulton,
Care Court: Unconstitutional and Ineffective,
58 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 779
().
Available at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr/vol58/iss3/5
