1)You are entitlted to a psychiatiric hearing if you are being held in a psych facility, which I suppose would cover the drugging issue.
However, I don't believe most states require that they provide you with a lawyer. You can get your own, assuming anyone knows that you are in lock up or you have money for one.
2)How is the government interveining? If it just talking to you, i.e. more speech, then that is OK. Assuming you are not under arrest and have invoked the 5th and 6th Ammendments, talk is fine with the Supreme COurt.
If it is using drugs or coercion or tourture to change your mind then your rights may have been violated under the 5th, 6th and 14th Ammendments, and possibly the 8th Ammendment.
Well, the article I linked to did have some details. Granted, there could be more information, but I think the author of the article was pretty upset about the concept of being forced to take psychoactive drugs against one's will regardless of details of the case.
OK, read the article and most of the links therein.
My conclusions:
1)Sell is not a danger to himself or others, thus the state cannot show a compelling reason that he should be drugged against his will.
2)Sell is a criminal and a risk to let go free, but that is not suffcient reason to forcibly drug him into "competence" in order to stand trial. The courts "drug him and see" arguments do not hold water on any logical basis. It does have the practical effect of getting the govt's trial going, but that alone is not sufficient reason.
3)If Sell is not competent, then just leave him in a mental facility, until a medical/psychiatric solution can be found, that is more long term and has a better chance of results. Then the State can have its trial. I don't understand the rush to convict. Get witness statments done in depositions, bag the evidence and wait a year or two.
4)As for the larger issues, Speech v. Drugs, in some cases it is certainly appropriate to force drugs on people. Inmates/People on trial that are dangersous to themselves or others should be placed in a medicated state that reduces or eliminates that risk.
As for the possible side effects on that person, affecting his ability to assist counsel in defense, that is less of an issue than most people think. Usually the client gets to ask for a result, not guilty plea/trial, guilty/plea bargain and the lawyer does the rest. Most trials I have seen the defendant was more of a hindrance than a help, and they were "sane".
A medicated client, with competent counsel, is not really worse off legal wise than any other defendant. And if the medication does work, then he will be able to more competently help counsel than without the drugs.
As to the issue of jury perception, with a drugged/nonresponsive defendant, I think that a passsive client is better than a emotional wreck, who has out bursts in court.
In conclusion the Sell case is not a watershed in this areana and I think that even the Right Leaning Supreme Court will not require that he be doped up on Halldol for trial, and will order a longer term psych solution. And then a just trial.
In conclusion the Sell case is not a watershed in this areana and I think that even the Right Leaning Supreme Court will not require that he be doped up on Halldol for trial, and will order a longer term psych solution. And then a just trial.
Let's hope you're right here. The attempts by so many people to force other people to take drugs against their will disturb me, whether it's attempts to get criminals to take antipsychotics or attempts to get schoolkids to take Ritalin. Too many people still think--or act like they think--that doctors are all-knowing and that prescription drugs are safe. I've had doctors nearly try to shove harmful (to me) drugs down my throat, so this is a somewhat sensitive issue to me.
Yes, I really apreciate the medical system, my grandfather is a doctor and my uncle a paramedic.
That said I always assume that I am responsible for me and that the doctor is there to advise me. I do my own homework and take anything said with a grain of salt. So having anyone tell me that "I WILL TAKE THIS" sets my hackles up.
I know that drugs are not a magic bullet and putting a PHD after your name does not make you God, Freud(thank goodness) or Pasteur. And all those guys made plenty of mistakes anyway.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
hummingwolf) wrote2003-02-28 08:44 am
Govt
1)You are entitlted to a psychiatiric hearing if you are being held in a psych facility, which I suppose would cover the drugging issue.
However, I don't believe most states require that they provide you with a lawyer. You can get your own, assuming anyone knows that you are in lock up or you have money for one.
2)How is the government interveining? If it just talking to you, i.e. more speech, then that is OK. Assuming you are not under arrest and have invoked the 5th and 6th Ammendments, talk is fine with the Supreme COurt.
If it is using drugs or coercion or tourture to change your mind then your rights may have been violated under the 5th, 6th and 14th Ammendments, and possibly the 8th Ammendment.
Unwilly
Re: Govt
Fair Trial and Drugs
My conclusions:
1)Sell is not a danger to himself or others, thus the state cannot show a compelling reason that he should be drugged against his will.
2)Sell is a criminal and a risk to let go free, but that is not suffcient reason to forcibly drug him into "competence" in order to stand trial. The courts "drug him and see" arguments do not hold water on any logical basis. It does have the practical effect of getting the govt's trial going, but that alone is not sufficient reason.
3)If Sell is not competent, then just leave him in a mental facility, until a medical/psychiatric solution can be found, that is more long term and has a better chance of results. Then the State can have its trial. I don't understand the rush to convict. Get witness statments done in depositions, bag the evidence and wait a year or two.
4)As for the larger issues, Speech v. Drugs, in some cases it is certainly appropriate to force drugs on people. Inmates/People on trial that are dangersous to themselves or others should be placed in a medicated state that reduces or eliminates that risk.
As for the possible side effects on that person, affecting his ability to assist counsel in defense, that is less of an issue than most people think. Usually the client gets to ask for a result, not guilty plea/trial, guilty/plea bargain and the lawyer does the rest. Most trials I have seen the defendant was more of a hindrance than a help, and they were "sane".
A medicated client, with competent counsel, is not really worse off legal wise than any other defendant. And if the medication does work, then he will be able to more competently help counsel than without the drugs.
As to the issue of jury perception, with a drugged/nonresponsive defendant, I think that a passsive client is better than a emotional wreck, who has out bursts in court.
In conclusion the Sell case is not a watershed in this areana and I think that even the Right Leaning Supreme Court will not require that he be doped up on Halldol for trial, and will order a longer term psych solution. And then a just trial.
Unwilly
Re: Fair Trial and Drugs
In conclusion the Sell case is not a watershed in this areana and I think that even the Right Leaning Supreme Court will not require that he be doped up on Halldol for trial, and will order a longer term psych solution. And then a just trial.
Let's hope you're right here. The attempts by so many people to force other people to take drugs against their will disturb me, whether it's attempts to get criminals to take antipsychotics or attempts to get schoolkids to take Ritalin. Too many people still think--or act like they think--that doctors are all-knowing and that prescription drugs are safe. I've had doctors nearly try to shove harmful (to me) drugs down my throat, so this is a somewhat sensitive issue to me.
Re: Fair Trial and Drugs
That said I always assume that I am responsible for me and that the doctor is there to advise me. I do my own homework and take anything said with a grain of salt. So having anyone tell me that "I WILL TAKE THIS" sets my hackles up.
I know that drugs are not a magic bullet and putting a PHD after your name does not make you God, Freud(thank goodness) or Pasteur. And all those guys made plenty of mistakes anyway.
Unwilly