A History of Civil and Criminal Commitment Statutes in New Hampshire:
| Jurisdiction | New Hampshire,United States |
| Pages | 0028 |
| Citation | Vol. 55 No. 2 Pg. 0028 |
| Publication year | 2015 |
Alexander de Nesnera, M.D., DFAPA.
New Hampshire has statutes delineating the treatment of individuals suffering from mental illness since 1714, and established a facility to care for the mentally ill in 1842. A history of the development of these laws has been described,[1] as well as their benefits.[2], [3] Currently, statutes allow for the civil commitment, known legally as a non-emergency involuntary admission, of individuals deemed to be a danger to themselves or others as a result of mental illness for a maximum of five years.[4] This maximum five-year time frame is one of the unique features of New Hampshire law; other states in the United States do not allow for such an extended period. No literature on the historical development of this distinctive New Hampshire five-year commitment time has been found. Furthermore, the maximum commitment times for individuals in New Hampshire has varied greatly over the years, depending on whether individuals' cases were in the civil or criminal justice system. In this article, I describe the evolution of this statutory development, delineating the changes in the time frames for civil and criminal commitments (along with their legal thresholds), and culminating with the merging of commitment time frames into a single, maximum five-year time for all New Hampshire citizens.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE CIVIL COMMITMENT STATUTES
Prior to the founding of the New Hampshire Asylum for the Insane in 1842, varying statutes allowed for patients suffering from mental illness to be cared for by families or friends (in the community) or by the state (in jails or prison). Up to that point, there were no civil commitment laws. An example of the laws prevailing at the time was one in 1822 that allowed the superior court to commit a person acquitted of a crime by reason of in-sanity or mental derangement to prison "to be detained till he or she be restored to his or her right mind" if the court believed the person was a danger to citizens or the peace of the state. The superior court could discharge the person if it believed they were no longer dangerous. This law also gave the superior court the authority to commit a lunatic person to the custody of friends, provided they gave bonds with surety for payment of all damages which any individual may sustain by any acts and doings of the lunatic person.[5]
The opening of the asylum led to statutes pertaining to civil commitment of mentally ill individuals. Twelve trustees, appointed by the governor, were charged with making regulations pertaining to the admission and care of patients. Any person deemed insane could be sent to the asylum by family, guardian, or friends with the consent of the trustees. A person could be discharged from the asylum by any three of the trustees, or by a superior court judge "whenever the cause of commitment ceases or a further residence at the asylum is in their opinion not necessary."[6] There was no maximum time frame linked to the discharge from the asylum, only the consent of three trustees or a judicial order.
In 1901, statutes still allowed for the commitment of a person to the asylum by parents, friends or guardians with the trustees' consent. Discharge from the asylum was possible by agreement of three trustees, by the Board of Lunacy, or by a justice of the Supreme Court whenever a further detention at the asylum was deemed no longer necessary. Persons under sentence of imprisonment whose term had not expired were sent back to prison.[7]
In 1942, 100 years after the founding of the asylum (now known as New Hampshire State Hospital) commitment by a probate judge was instituted. If an individual was felt to be dangerous, a petition to commit the individual, filed by any person or selectmen of the town, could be heard by the probate court. The court could commit the individual to the state hospital, but no time frame for commitment was set forth. Discharge of the individual could occur by the Board of Lunacy, the hospital trustees, or by an order of the superior court, whenever further detention at the hospital was, in their opinion, unnecessary. There were no clear procedures on how or when the Board of Lunacy, the trustees, or...
To continue reading
Request your trial