In the case of Panetti vs Quaterman, the Defendant Scott Louis Panetti was sentenced to death row because of the double murder he committed, after killing his wife's parents. His doctors stated that Panetti have a mental disorder and the doctors concludes that Panetti believes that he will be put to death because he is preaching the Gospels. The case of Panetti is similar to the decision of Supreme Court in 1986, for the case of Ford vs Wainwright.
The idea of mental illness is fundamental, and in a due process model the Criminal justice development, it has been contended, can be characterized as a structure whereby ever growing impediments are required to be prevailed over as the suspect continues further down it. (Institute of Criminal Justice Studies, 2003, page 66). It is also contended by Gelsthorpe (2002, page 106) that those caught up in defence work are more connected with due process whereas prosecutors and the courts are more connected with a crime control model. Due process recognizes that a number of culpable individuals will be exonerated but contends that this is fair with the intention of making sure the freeing of the innocent. (Institute of Criminal Justice Studies, 2003, page 66).
A rule which driven the accountability for crime prevention beyond onto the responsibility of private individuals seemed foolish, given that it purely bared the shortfalls of a criminal justice system which was calling for a greater fraction of public expenditure. Possibly more vital, although, were the issues regarding creating a stronghold mentality, which would consecutively produce more apprehension than the lopsided quantity and previously subsisted, and which was swiftly being distinguished as an issue in its own right.
As a general rule, the threat of harm must be real and present 48 and the proof of dangerousness clear and convincing. 49 We note at the outset that dangerousness has a special, though elusive, meaning in the context of involuntary commitment. It refers not only to the likelihood of violence to oneself or to others but also to severe self-neglect, to the point where the individual is unable to survive safely in the community, as the Supreme Court was careful to explain in its landmark decision in O'Connor v. Donaldson.
Although civil commitment had been practiced in the United States for over two hundred years, O'Connor was the first case in which the Supreme Court considered the constitutional boundaries of the commitment process. The case involved a fifty-five-year-old man who was committed to the Florida State Hospital at Chattahoochee in 1957 and kept there for nearly fifteen years without treatment, although he had never been dangerous to himself or others, was capable of earning a living outside the hospital, and had received offers to live in a supportive halfway house or with a former college classmate who was willing and able to provide for his welfare. The