In all fairness to both the state and the defendant, I don't have the slightest problem with this based in part on the Supreme Courts decision in Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003), Washington v. Harper, 494 U. S. 210, and Riggins v. Nevada, 504 U. S. 127, holds that:
"the Constitution permits the Government involuntarily to administer antipsychotic drugs to render a mentally ill defendant competent to stand trial on serious criminal charges if the treatment is medically appropriate, is substantially unlikely to have side effects that may undermine the trial's fairness, and, taking account of less intrusive alternatives, is necessary significantly to further important governmental trial-related interests."
The alternatives are for a defendant to committed indefinitely to a mental institution until such a time that they are competent to stand trial, or have the drugs administered so that the defendant can competently assist in there own defense and possibly win acquittal. I would think that in the case of where Leroy Smith III has been charged with murdering and dismembering his father after allegedly suffering from years of sexual abuse the fact that it was necessary to force the administration of psychotherapeutic drugs just to stand trial would go a long ways in his defense (it would in my mind at least). By the same token state should not be deprived of the right to bring Mr. Smith to trial for a heinous act just because of his current mental state.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
