{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.008678881388621022, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0009643201542912247, 'mean_word_length': 5.528301886792453, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Role and Functions of the Attorney in the Civil Commitment Process: The District of Columbia's Approach

During the last 2 decades, the general concern over individual rights and liberties has influenced the nature of public and professional interest regarding the involuntary commitment of the mentally ill. The commitment of mentally ill persons for the humanitarian purpose of providing them care or for protecting them or others from possible future harm contrasts sharply with libertarian ideals. The complex issue of balancing individual freedom against social interests is further complicated by our quasi-judicial procedures of determining when and how a person should be hospitalized against his will. This article proposes that the role and functions of appointed counsel are essential to establishing procedures which adequately balance social interests and individual rights. The civil commitment process in the District of Columbia is presented with the intent of highlighting an adequate system of legal representation.