Mental Health Law IV: Prisoners' Right to Treatment Flashcards
Prior to 1976, it had not been established that inmates even had a right to receive treatment while in prison. This changed with
Estelle v. Gamble (1976), the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged inmates’ rights to appropriate care and treatment under the Eighth Amendment
The Case and outcome of Vitek v. Jones (1980):
1974: Mr. Jones, convicted of robbery, sentenced 3–9 years jail time.
In solitary, set mattress on fire, & severely burned himself. Found mentally ill and sent from prison to state mental hospital. Mr. Jones filed suit as this transfer violated his right to due process & involuntary commitment did not fall within the usual conditions of confinement for which he had already received due process.
District and Supreme Court agreed, acknowledging that a valid conviction extinguishes the right to freedom from confinement, it held that this does not authorize the involuntary commitment to a mental institution without granting new and complete due process protections.
Supreme court ruling of Lewis v. Fletcher, 1996
to bring a suit against a prison, an inmate must show “actual injury” as opposed to simply claiming that a right was being violated
Findings in Farmer v. Brennan(1994)
prison officials were “deliberately indifferent” rather than just negligent, and so supported these officials’ potential liability for compensatory and punitive damages.
Two important cases involving Involuntary Medication of Prisoners
Knecht v. Gilman (1973),
Washington v. Harper (1990)
The case and outcome of Knecht v. Gilman (1973)
Inmates claimed that those with behavior problems were given aversive therapy, consisting of an injection of apomorphine, which caused vomiting lasting from 15 minutes to an hour.
A Federal Court held that this treatment could be considered cruel and unusual punishment if administered without truly informed and voluntary consent
The case of Washington v. Harper (1990)
Outcome asked on another card
Walter Harper, robbery, 4 year sentence
Consented to antipsychotic medications while incarcerated. 1980: Received parole, w/condition he continues receiving psychiatric treatment, including the antipsychotic drugs. A year later, due to med non-compliance admitted inpatient and assaulted 2 nurses which violated parole. Sent back to prison and consented again to medication. 1982: refused to continue taking medications. Treating psychiatrist sought to involuntarily medicate Harper. Harper stated he “would rather die than take medication.”
Harper filed suit claiming failure to have a judicial hearing before forcing meds violated the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Harper demanded the State first find him incompetent and then get court approval for involuntary medication.
The Outcomes of Washington v. Harper (1990)
State Court ruling: inmates w/ serious mental illness may be involuntarily medicated if dangerous to self/others, and if the Rx is in his medical interest.
State Supreme Court reversed decision, ruling: State could administer medication to a competent, nonconsenting inmate only if, in a judicial hearing the inmate had full adversarial procedural protections and State proved by ‘clear, cogent, and convincing’ evidence that meds were necessary and effective for furthering a compelling state interest.
U.S. Supreme Court agreed that there is a significant liberty interest in avoiding the forceful administration of antipsychotic drugs. HOWEVER, the Court only required an in-house review.
The SCOTUS decision of Riggins v. Nevada (1992)
The Court found that Riggins’s rights guaranteed to him by the 6th and 14th Amendments had been violated as a result of the administration of forced medication to him (during trial which he wanted to refuse meds because it would show the jury his ‘true self’) by the State.
The Court found the forced med was not to control how dangerous he was but to make him ‘appropriate’ for trial and that changing the defendant’s behavior was the same as manipulating material evidence.
In Sell v. U.S. (2003), The Court ruled that an inmate could be legally medicated against his or her will if a trial court determined that (4 things)
- The individual facts of the case suggest that important governmental interests are served by getting the defendant competent and proceeding to trial.
- The forced medication is substantially likely to significantly further those state interests.
- Any less intrusive interventions are unlikely to provide the same benefits.
- The medication is also in the best medical interest of the defendant.
