The mental health system currently experiences limits due to a lack of money and a split involving a philosophical argument over whether the government should require people to receive treatment even when they do not want it. The current civil commitment process can temporarily stabilize a person with mental illness, but it often fails to restore quality of life fully. Advocates of stricter legal controls on mentally ill persons say that it is shameful that the system designed for the protection of mentally ill persons also shields them from effective care at a time when medicine can significantly improve many person's conditions. Agreement exists that government support for the treatment of mental illness has declined to a dangerously low level. Only 60 percent of State prison inmates and 40 percent of jail inmates reported receiving treatment. Since the 1950's, States have moved toward community-based treatment and courts have restricted on due process grounds the government's ability to involuntarily commit persons to hospital. Special mental health courts that attempt to channel some petty offenders away from the criminal justice system are gaining popularity. Laws on outpatient commitment are a source of debate. Many communities are considering diversion programs that allow police officers to send some misdemeanants directly into treatment rather than routing them through jails. Family members consider the current adversarial system related to involuntary treatment and guardianship to be fundamentally flawed. Experts say that a crucial factor is participation in treatment decisions by other mentally ill persons who have been stabilized and other family members who have undergone similar experiences. Photographs