[inquest]

The case required the court to balance the government's interest in punishing nonviolent crime with a person's constitutional right to control his or her body.

Rulings like this are going to be the death of constitutional protections. The Constitution either protects, or it doesn't protect - that is, a right either exists or it doesn't exist. There's no "balance" involved.

[jmc813]

WOD Ping

[OXENinFLA]

a big HUH?

[Redcloak]

Does this mean that they'll be putting the judges of the 9th Circuit back on their meds?

[johniegrad]

One of the problems here is that the law often allows for people to be psychiatrically hospitalized if found not competent to stand trial. They are then treated to regain that competency to stand trial.

This may, in fact, be a positive outcome for a defendant if they had committed a crime. If found guilty, they are then sentenced for a DETERMINATE period of time. However, if they are found not competent to stand trial AND they are not treated to regain competency, they are in essence incarcerated for an INDETERMINATE period of time since charges cannot be resolved with an incompetent defendant who refuses to be returned to competency.

[Warren]

Are they accepting volunteers?

[Dajjal]

Found an old Washington Times article about the case that the SC just overturned. A bit more detail than today's article has.

Federal Court OKs Forced Drugging
By Kelly Patricia O Meara
Washington Times - Insight Magazine
April 1, 2002

[GotDangGenius]

When someone commits a crime and is clearly pyschotic, but the government then medicates the person to remove the pyschotic condition so that the then "normal" person can stand trial for their pyschotic doings, is wholly and completely abhorrent to Constitution. It is as close to a "mass production" line of unconstitutional prosecutions as you can get.

Prosecutors serve a purpose in our system, but they must be watched over very carfeully.

It appears this decision is the right one- to limit the use of forced medication to remove the pyschotic condition for the medical benefit of the defendant, but it appears that medication can not be forced upon someone to "qualifiy" them post-crime for competency.

The crime was committed by a pyschotic, but prosecutors wanted to prosecute the "innocent" person who is now medicated and can understand what a nut they used to be.

That is precisely what the Constitution aimed to prohibit.

[Destructor]

A potentially dangerous precedent is set.

[appalachian_dweller]

I wonder if this could be applied to schools forcing kids to take Riddlin.