Commentary: Resistance to Jackson v. Indiana—Civil Commitment of Defendants Who Cannot be Restored to Competence

Levitt and colleagues provide empirical data and qualitative information that indicate that unrestorable, incompetent defendants are treated differently from ordinary patients in the civil commitment process. This report contributes to the literature suggesting that mentally ill defendants' rights under Jackson v. Indiana are not being respected. The historic developments that have led to problematic implementation of Jackson are reviewed. Increased involvement of the mentally ill in the criminal justice system and civil commitment reform are key factors that have given rise to prosecutors' widespread resistance to implementing Jackson. The current approach to unrestorable, incompetent defendants is outmoded and does not serve public safety.