Gender Differences in Civil Commitment Hearing Experience for Persons Who Use Opioids

OBJECTIVES

Civil commitment has increasingly served as a court-based legal intervention for severe opioid use, but little research has examined the civil commitment (CC) hearing process from the perspective of the person who is committed. Despite documented gender differences in opioid use and experiences within the legal system, past research has also not investigated gender differences in perceptions of the CC process for persons who use opioids.

METHODS

Participants were 121 persons (43% female) with opioid use who were interviewed upon arrival at the CC facility about their experience of the CC hearing process in Massachusetts.

RESULTS

Two thirds of participants were taken to the commitment hearing by police, and 59.5% shared a cell with others while waiting. Overall, the commitment intake process at the courthouse took over 5 hours. Participants spent, on average, less than 15 minutes with their lawyer before the hearing, and a majority of CC hearings lasted less than 15 minutes. Once transferred to a CC facility, opioid withdrawal management began within 4 hours. Compared with women, men reported longer wait times between the hearing and transfer, as well as longer wait times for withdrawal management at the facility ( P < 0.05). Women perceived worse interactions with the judge and greater dissatisfaction with the commitment process compared with men ( P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

There were few gender differences in the experience of CC. However, overall, participants reported a lengthy court process and low levels of perceived procedural justice.

The Importance of Perceived Procedural Justice Among Defendants With a Non-Western Background Involved in Dutch Criminal Cases

This study aims to put perceived procedural justice to a critical test in the context of Dutch criminal court hearings. To that end, we surveyed 198 criminal defendants to examine whether their perceptions of procedural fairness were significantly associated with trust in judges and intentions to protest against judicial rulings, among other variables. We also examine the possibility that sometimes unfair procedures may have nice aspects, because they offer opportunities to attribute negative outcomes to external causes. Previous studies conducted in different settings support this line of reasoning by showing that associations between perceived procedural justice and other variables are sometimes attenuated or even reversed, particularly when people feel strongly evaluated. The current study takes these insights into the novel context of Dutch criminal court hearings by focusing on defendants with a non-Western ethnic-cultural background. Some of these defendants may feel negatively evaluated by society, which can manifest as a high level of perceived discrimination. Thus, we examine whether the associations between perceived procedural justice and important other variables may be attenuated or reversed depending on respondents' perceptions of everyday discrimination and their outcome judgments. Our results revealed significant associations between perceived procedural justice on the one hand and trust in judges and protest intentions on the other hand, which remained intact regardless of perceptions of everyday discrimination and outcome judgments. Hence, even in this real-life courtroom context, procedural justice was a relevant concern. Taken together, our findings support the importance of perceived procedural justice, even when it is put to a critical test.