Forensic Treatment

Question 1

Estelle v. Gamble (1976)

Answer 1

Issue: Is medical negligence enough to prove a constitutional violation of a prisoner’s right to treatment?

Answer: No

Gamble in TX DOC; hurt on the job and seen for ongoing pain afterwards; medically cleared but refused to work due to pain and put in seg and then solitary confinement
Sued DOD/staff stating their refusal to provide medical care violated 8th amendment
DC dismissed complaint
US COA reversed and remanded
USSC- remanded to apply below standards

Finding: 1.) Prison officials must demonstrate “deliberate indifference”- defined as intentionally denying/delaying access to medical care- for refusal of services to be constituted as cruel and unusual punishment. 2.) Mr. Gamble’s care may have been negligent but it was not necessarily deliberate indifference

Question 2

Vitek v. Jones (1980)

Answer 2

Issue: Is a prisoner constitutionally entitled to procedural protections before involuntary transfer to a psychiatric hospital for treatment?

Answer: Yes

Jones convicted of robbery; set prison bed on fire and needed hospital care; transferred to psych hospital in accordance with NE law which required a physician to assert if he had a “MD or D” and could not be adequately treated in prison
He challenged constitutionality of the statute- DC agreed stating transfer infringed on his liberty interest protected by Due process of the 14th amendment and had “stigmatizing” consequences beyond those imposed by incarceration for a crime
USSC- affirmed

Finding: Required state to abide by the following procedures before transfer of a prisoner to a MH: 1.) Written notice to the prisoner. 2.) a hearing allowing for presentation of evidence and testimony; 3.) an independent decision maker; 4.) a written statement by the fact finder; and 5.) Legal counsel for prisoner.

Question 3

Farmer v. Brennan (1994)

Answer 3

Issue: Does the “deliberate indifference” standard in Estelle v. Gamble require actual knowledge of risk by prison officials?

Answer: Yes

Farmer (M to F trans) convicted and sent to federal prison; allegedly beaten and raped by male inmate in her cell
Filed suit alleging 8th amendment violations against prison officials for being deliberately indifferent with regard to protecting her safety
US DC granted summary judgment to prison officials
US COA- affirmed
USSC- vacated and remanded for further review

Finding: 1.) Prison officials may be held liable for deliberate indifference only if they are aware of a “substantial risk of serious harm” and they “disregard that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it.” 2.) Deliberate indifference is somewhere above negligence but below purposeful or knowledgeable harm; 3.) the appropriate test for this case was “subjective recklessness.”

Question 4

Baxstrom v. Herold (SCOTUS, 1966)

Answer 4

Issue: Can an individual being released from prison be civilly committed w/o being afforded the right to a jury determination of such commitment?

Answer: No

Baxstrom incarcerated in NY and certified as insane and then transferred to Dannemora Hospital (DOC)
At termination of criminal sentence, doctors testified should be CC and transferred to dept. MH
MH sx didn’t think he was appropriate for their care so remained at Dannemora for 4 years (after sentence complete)
Baxstrom filed a writ of habeus corpus saying if he was insane he should be transferred (denied multiple times and by NY COA)
USSC granted cert

Finding: 1.) Baxstrom had been denied equal protection under 14th Amend because denied the right to a jury review of the finding he was MI as is afforded all others who are facing CC in NY-CC was maintained by DOC beyond expiration of prison sentence without judicial determination he was dangerously mentally ill. 2.) Did not agree with the state that individuals evaluated for CC after penal sentence are categorically different than all others