The first question to be reveiewed is whether evaluation needs to take place in custody. Based on research in Canada and the United States, perhaps 80 percent of these evaluations could take place either on an outpatient basis or in jail. A major concern in evaluating fitness is the nature of the criteria used. The Law Reform Commission (Canada) has usggested that a person is unfit if he does not understand the nature of the proceedings against him, if he does not understand their personal import, or if he is unable to communicate with counsel. Given the problems in assessing fitness, some have suggested that trials of possibly unfit defendants be allowed. A trial would allow evaluators to more directly assess the requirments of the particular defense. At present, the commitment of unfit defendants is automatic and indefinite, under a Lieutenant Governor's warrant. This leads to lengthy, unnecessary, and occasionally harmful detainment. The Law Reform Commission has recommended that this disposition should be removed from the Lieutenant Governor's venue and given to the trial judge. The Law Reform Commission recommended several disposition options: release with no specified treatment; outpatient treatment; or commitment to a hospital for up to 6 months, at which time the case would be reviewed by the court. This recommendation does not go far enough in specifying limits on the length of commitment. There is also a need to indicate the manner in which judges would reach decisions about which option is most appropriate, and if commitment is ordered, how long it should last. A total of 31 references are included.