167Thus, two individuals with identical mental conditions may be found "mentally ill"
and "not mentally ill" depending on the definer. Unfortunately, since the courts
rely almost entirely on disagreeing professionals to define mental illness, someone
like Gma may be involuntarily hospitalized in one city or by one treatment team
and not in another city or by another team. In general, however, the medical com-
munity has shown a preference for presuming mental illness. Given the medical
community's favor for presumption of illness when confronting uncertainty (Arngo,
1993), it is not unreasonable to assume that borderline cases are frequently labeled
"mentally ill" for legal (i.e., involuntary commitment) purposes. Thus, it would
seem that forensic psychological practitioners are overinclusive in these matters. In
other words, more nonmentally ill individuals are being involuntarily hospitalized
than the truly mentally ill who are not.
The forensic psychology implications, then, are profound for individuals like
Gina who are hieing (potentially) legal intervention. While we must recognize
individual freedom, liberty, and self-determination, we must also be concerned
with more general matters of public safety and health. The line between the two is
not clear, as evidenced in the law's failure to define mental illness. Thus, it is left to
forensic psychology practitioners and policy analysts to determine where this line
should be drawn. At this point, there is no correct answer. There is no determined
future for Gina or others like her. If we know, however, that the legislature and the
courts cannot define mental illness, psychology should at the very least assume the
task of creating a consistent definition, one in which we could know what mental
illness stands for in the legal context.
Suggestions for Future Research
As the future of mental illness in the legal system depends to a large degree on
establishing an adequate definition of mental illness, it is necessary that research
be directed in such a way. While many attempts have been made by legislatures,
courts, and even the American Psychological Association to define mental illness,
none seem to have proposed any conclusive interpretations. Thus, the varying def-
initions of mental illness across psychologists, psychiatrists, statutes, courts, and the
like necessitate comparative analyses. Research may be directed at establishing com-
monalities between proposed definitions in an attempt to establish a single, definitive
concept of mental illness. More importantly, perhaps, the effects of cases such as
Foucha need to be analyzed to assess their future impact on other court and legisla-
tive decisions regarding mental illness and the law. Defining mental illness, however,
is one problematic area of research. It is an area where a significant amount of in-
quiry has already been conducted; however, these studies have failed to solve the
controversy. Thus, future case decisions and their implications in this area must be
evaluated.