THE INVOLUNTARY RIGHT
TO STAND TRIAL
Michelle Meyers
Legal Issues of the 21st Century
Legal Research Paper
Antipsychotic
drugs are chemical agents used to manage and treat serious mental illness. In general, the drugs influence chemical
transmissions to the brain, affecting both activatory and inhibitory
functions. Because the drugsÕ
purpose is to reduce the level of psychotic thinking, it is virtually
undisputed that they are mind-altering. [i]
My paper will focus on whether or not people should be forced to stand trial under involuntary medication to make them fit to stand trial or should they have the Òright-to-refuseÓ medication.
What
Types of Drugs are Used?
Psychotropic drugs include any medications
that affect mentation.[ii] Sedatives, tranquilizers, hypnotics,
and antipsychotics are all subclasses of the psychotropes.[iii]
Antipsychotics, sometimes referred to as a major tranquilizers, reverse the
symptoms of major mental illnesses and their aim is to restore normal
mentation.[iv] The main focus of involuntary
medication cases resolves around psychotropic drugs.
In every first year criminal law course it is taught that a
defendant must be ÒfitÓ to stand trial.
To be fit, a defendant must have Òsufficient present ability to consult
with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understandingÑandÉa
rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.Ó Because the standard is one of ration,
the defendant does not need to comprehensively understand all actions against
him.
Goedecke v. State is one of the
earliest involuntary medication cases.
The Colorado Supreme Court in its analysis of allowing the defendant the
Òright-to-refuseÓ treatment focused on the negative side effects of the
drug. The court applying state law
held that a civilly committed inpatient possesses the right to refuse
antispychotic medication.[v]
The court noted that medication given to the defendant altered his thought
processes and thus may have had an effect of his ability to stand trial.
The court focuses only on the adverse
effects, but does not address the defendantÕs ability to have ÒnormalÓ mental
capacity. Therefore, I question
the courtÕs reasoning, if a defendant must meet a mere rational standard to
stand trial, is it really irrational for the court to medicate him? I believe the answer is no under this
courts reasoning.
In Riggins v. State of Nevada, the
defendant sought review of his conviction and sentence of death for
first-degree murder and robbery after he had involuntary taken medication to
make him fit to stand trial. The defendant had brutally stabbed and killed his
friend. After being found fit to stand trial, defendant pleaded guilty by
reason of insanity.[vi] The trial
court placed the defendant on Mellaril, an antipsychotic drug. The court of appeals affirmed his
conviction over his objection to involuntary medication. The Supreme Court of Nevada in per
curiam opinion vacated RigginÕs conviction. The court remanded for a trial without involuntary
administration of antipsychotic medications of any type, unless the district
court should find,É, that the administration is medically appropriate and
essential, considering less intrusive alternatives, to ensure the safety of the
appellantÉÓ[vii]
The Supreme CourtÕs opinion makes this area of law even more of a penumbra. The court did not make a bright line rule as one would expect against involuntary medication but instead gave the trial court discretion in order to decide when it is appropriate to administer drugs. The Supreme CourtÕs decision gave the trial court the same discretion the court already had. Therefore, this opinion does not further the law on involuntary medication.
The United States
Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade arguably created a constitutional right to
privacy.[viii]
The constitutional right of privacy has been recognized as establishing an
individualÕs autonomy over her own body.[ix]
There is a strong argument to be made that if the right to privacy extends to
right to keep or abort a fetus, it could also be extended to governmentÕs
interference with a defendantÕs thoughts and behavior. This is not to say that
the government does not have a compelling interest in ensuring the defendantÕs
safety as well as the safety of those around him by placing him in facility for
the mental disabled. My argument
questions can the governmentÕs interests extend to defendantÕs being fit to
stand criminal trial?
A question, which needs to be answered, is whether people have an
inherent right to have the capacity to think. Realistically, the capacity to
think and decide is a fundamental element of freedom. [x]
The protected right of communication presupposes a capacity to produce
ideas. Whatever powers the
Constitution has granted our government, involuntary mind control is not one of
them, absent extraordinary circumstances.[xi] The ability to decide whether or not to
take medicine to stand trial is up to the defendant.
Additionally, the punishment the defendant
receives will not be the appropriate one. The defendant will not be
rehabilitated if it is found he is guilty and sent to a penitentiary without
medical supervision. The defendant
needs not be in jail, but instead a mental institution to help him deal with
his medical issues. Masking the
defendantÕs mental capabilities with mind-altering drugs, does not solve the
problem. Therefore, I do not think the government has a compelling state
interest to violate the defendantÕs privacy.
As the cases demonstrate there seems to be no
bright line rule. However, what is
clear is that the trial court has the discretion to decide whether a person
should be given Òmind-alteringÓ drugs to stand trial. Further, I do not think the courts are acting within the
Constitution when they involuntarily force a defendant to be medicated. I think that privacy extends to a
personÕs thoughts.
[i] Rogers v. Okin, 478
F.Supp. 1342 (D.Mass.1979)
[ii] Subcommittee of the
Committee on Public Information, American Psychiatric Association, A
Psychiatric Glossary 129 (4th ed. 1975).
[iii] Gutheil, Thomas, M.D.,
Appelbaum, Paul, M.D. Mind Control, Synthetic Sanity, Artifical Competence, and
Genuine Confusion: Legally Relevant Effects of Antipsychotic Medication
[iv] Id.
[v] Goedecke v. State,
198 Colo. 407, 603 P.2d 123, 124,125 (1979).
[vi] Riggins v. State of
Nevada, 107 Nev. 178, 808 P.2d 535, 535 (1991).
[vii] Riggins v. State of
Nevada, 109 Nev. 966, 968; 860 P.2d 705, (1993).
[viii] Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 959; 93 S.
Ct. 1409; 35 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1973).
[ix] Id.
[x] Gutheil, Thomas, M.D., Appelbaum, Paul, M.D. Mind Control, Synthetic Sanity, Artifical Competence, and Genuine Confusion: Legally Relevant Effects of Antipsychotic Medication