Supreme Court Limits Permissible Scope of Government’s Ability to Force Medication of Mentally Ill Defendants

Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 31 (4):737-739 (2003)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

On June 16, 2003, the Supreme Court ruled that forced administration of antipsychotic drugs to a defendant facing serious criminal charges is appropriate in order to render that defendant competent to stand trial, but only in limited circumstances. The treatment must be medically appropriate, substantially unlikely to have side effects that may undermine the fairness of the trial, and necessary to significantly further important government interests, after taking account of less-intrusive alternatives.Charles Sell, a former dentist, had a long history of mental illness. He had been hospitalized twice, in 1982 and 1984, after expressing paranoid ideas to law enforcement officials. In May 1997, Sell was charged with fifty-six counts of mail fraud, six counts of Medicaid fraud, and one count of money laundering. He was released on bail after a magistrate determined that he was currently competent to stand trial.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,612

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Bail under Special Legislations.Deepa Kansra - 2019 - In Manoj Kr Sinha and Anuragdeep (ed.), Bail: Law and Practice in India. pp. 185-193.
Recent Developments in Health Law.Won Bok Lee, Carmel Shachar & Peter Chang - 2008 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 36 (1):191-199.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-08-31

Downloads
16 (#227,957)

6 months
4 (#1,635,958)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references