Treatment

Question 1

Baxstrom v. Herold (1966)

Answer 1

In the 1960s, NY held criminally insane patients deemed too dangerous and mentally disordered to be released; Baxstrom sued and SCOTUS found the system of detainment unconstitutional, ordered that they be released or processed through state civil commitment procedures

Question 2

Estelle v. Gamble (1976)

Answer 2

SCOTUS acknowledged inmates’ rights to appropriate care and treatment under the Eighth Amendment. Incarceration in the absence of needed treatment would constitute cruel and unusual punishment

deliberate indifference to these rights had to be proven in order for the inmate to sue

Question 3

Vitek v. Jones (1980)

Answer 3

Transfers to a hospital without notice/opportunities for a hearing, including transfer to a mental hospital for involuntary treatment was deprivation of liberty

Legacy: To Vitek/Vitek hearing is a hearing to send/admit an inmate to inpatient treatment

Question 4

Farmer v. Brennan (1994)

Answer 4

Inmate diagnosed as “transsexual (preoperative)” transferred to a GP penitentiary that was violent; inmate beaten and raped; SCOTUS found deliberate indifference and awarded inmate

Question 5

Washington v. Harper (1990)

Answer 5

depriving Harper of a judicial hearing for medication prior to treatment violated due process; meds medically appropriate for prisoner DTO

Question 6

Riggins v. Nevada (1992)

Answer 6

SCOTUS ruled that rights were violated; meds were forced so that he was appropriate, not to mitigate danger, and that it could have been replaced with less intrusive method; prohibited medication to render one competent

Question 7

Sell v. United States (2003)

Answer 7

SCOTUS ruled that an inmate could be involuntarily medicated:
(1) The individual facts of the case suggest that important governmental interests are served by getting the defendant competent and proceeding to trial.
(2) The forced medication is substantially likely to significantly further those state interests.
(3) Any less intrusive interventions are unlikely to provide the same benefits.
(4) The medication is also in the best medical interest of the defendant.
Court urged that other rationales be used (dangerousness)