Loughner loses 3 appeals over forced medication
Source: azfamily.com
PHOENIX (AP) -- An appeals court denied a request by the Tucson shooting rampage suspect's lawyers to stop their client's forced medication with psychotropic drugs and end his treatment at a Missouri prison facility where experts are trying to make him psychologically fit for trial.
The ruling Monday by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals clears the way for authorities to continue to medicate Jared Lee Loughner.
He has pleaded not guilty to 49 charges stemming from the Jan. 8, 2011, shooting in Tucson that killed six people and wounded Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and 12 others.
His lawyers have vigorously fought efforts to medicate him even though psychologists say he is improving.
Read more: http://www.azfamily.com/news/Loughner-loses-3-appeals-over-forced-medication-141464563.html
cbayer
(146,218 posts)If someone was truly insane at the time they committed a crime and did not understand right and wrong, should they be forcefully medicated to make them sane enough to stand trial?
I am interested in what other members think about this.
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)Tunkamerica
(4,444 posts)start
Wait Wut
(8,492 posts)There was an article that I read quite awhile ago that said one of the psychologists that interviewed him after he was medicated said he showed something like remorse. That would be beneficial in his case.
I'm not in favor of ever letting this guy out of prison...ever...ever...ever, but...I'd like to see him get a fair trial where he can be present. It might even offer a bit of healing to the families of his victims. Otherwise, it's like putting a ghost on trial. I think they need to face him. To see his eyes. If they can look into his eyes and not see a madman, but hopefully a bit of shame...something...that may help them let go.
He needs to be there.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)If he has, say, schizophrenia, then he needs to be in a hospital specifically for the criminally insane.
If medication is being forced now, my concern would be whether there would be grounds to force medication if he stands trial, is found guilty and is sent to a regular prison. If not, would it be humane to have him with the general population untreated?
Wait Wut
(8,492 posts)He's already seen an army of psychologists that will be called to testify. If he was mentally ill then, he still is...just medicated. I sincerely doubt that he would be put into gen. pop. He'll likely be put into a mental health facility for the rest of his life. His illness would make him a danger to the rest of the prison population.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)found not guilty by reason of insanity or convicted inmates who become severely mentally ill after their convictions or those that are unable to stand trial due to psychiatric illness.
Is he in one now? I suspect he is. If they make him sane enough to stand trial, will he be returned to one? I don't know, but perhaps not.
And while he may become a danger to the rest of the population, all the data I have seen is that psychiatrically ill inmates are much more likely to be the victims of violence than the perpetrators.
wandy
(3,539 posts)1) Loughner is stark raving mad and should be kept in a cell for the rest of his life. With padding.
2) Loughner was of sound mind when he went on a killing spree. He should be kept in a cell for the rest of his life. Or something.
The only objective here is to prevent him from doing it again.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)it is more humane to keep him in a hospital for the rest of his life.
That would achieve the objective you outline.
wandy
(3,539 posts)Sen. Walter Sobchak
(8,692 posts)and my girlfriend has been assaulted twice by San Francisco's famed urban savages.
I don't accept that the right of the insane and violent to refuse treatment should outweigh the safety of the public. A strong case could have been made for forcibly medicating or institutionalizing this individual even before the killings.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)The problem is particularly obvious in San Francisco.
Laws concerning forced treatment vary dramatically from state to state, and that includes both forced meds and hospitalization.
But that is a different issue than this. From what is offered here, it appears that he is being medicated in order to stand trial, not to prevent him from imminently harming anyone.
There are some patients who have committed murder and other crimes who never go to trial. But they do spend their entire lives in forensic hospitals. If they ever get well enough to be released, they go to trial.
The failure of the system in not preventing this crime speaks to the failure of the system that exists across the country. Access to psychiatric services are pretty difficult everywhere and become even more difficult when a patient is not willing. Hospital emergency departments are stuffed to the gills with psychiatric patients waiting for beds. The bar for actually getting one gets higher and higher.
Sen. Walter Sobchak
(8,692 posts)One of the psychos who attacked my girlfriend was a resident of a group home intended to treat schizophrenic women. She had access to treatment - she just liked crack better.
The other psycho who attacked her ran off and was not apprehended.
The "old way" might not have been pretty - but it was firmly grounded in reality.
jakeXT
(10,575 posts)Still amazes me that he has the same lawyer as this MKULTRA victim
Judy Clarke, Loughner's attorney, has argued that the medication has been used as a way of restoring the defendant to competency and not for the purported risk he posed to himself, therefore violating his fair trial rights.
http://theresareports.com/?q=node/81
http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2011/06/should-jared-loughner-be-forcibly-drugged-in-jail.html
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)Perhaps the point here is this: Is it ethical to give him the medication against his will for the sole purpose of getting him to the point where he can stand trial? Is that of any benefit to him?
Ruby the Liberal
(26,219 posts)Is the intent to get him well enough to be present and lucid at his trial, and then dump the requirement after it is over?
I'm on the fence on this one. If he is going to get life (hospital/prison), he should be lucid enough to spend the rest of his days with the knowledge of what he did. On the other hand, forcing medication is a slippery slope.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)While it is generally permissible to medicate someone who poses an imminent threat to themselves or others, the ability to force meds becomes much stickier once that threat is no longer imminent.
In this case, it appears that he is being medicated for the primary purpose of being able to stand trial. One question I have is whether they would (or should) be able to continue medicating him after trial.
He is certainly going to get life in one form or another. But he may be found not guilty by reason of insanity.
And then there is the issue of the death penalty. If he is found straight up guilty, will he be sentenced to death? If he is forcibly medicated in order to stand trial and gets the death penalty, is that ethical?
Ruby the Liberal
(26,219 posts)(and they know it).
Making a huge stink over forced medication practically writes the verdict of "not mentally competent".
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)If he was willing to take meds voluntarily, I don't think there would be any issue here at all.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)jakeXT
(10,575 posts)The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)Ruby the Liberal
(26,219 posts)minavasht
(413 posts)that he was the person who pulled the trigger?
Ruby the Liberal
(26,219 posts)Not to repeat, but this works in their favor for that. By making an ordeal over forced medication, they are making their case before it even goes to trial.
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)watrwefitinfor
(1,400 posts)that dealt with this question. I miss that show.
Difficult question.
Wat
On edit: might have been "The Practice".
cbayer
(146,218 posts)And a really fascinating one that spans ethics, justice, free will, legal responsibility, physician responsibility.
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)nt