Washington v. Harper

Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case in which an incarcerated inmate sued the state of Washington over the issue of involuntary medication, specifically antipsychotic medication.[1]

Washington v. Harper
Argued October 11, 1989
Decided February 27, 1990
Full case nameWashington, et al., Petitioners v. Walter Harper
Citations494 U.S. 210 (more)
110 S. Ct. 1028; 108 L. Ed. 2d 178; 1990 U.S. LEXIS 1174; 58 U.S.L.W. 4249
Holding
The Due Process Clause permits a state to treat an incarcerated inmate having a serious mental disorder with antipsychotic medication against his will, under the condition that he is dangerous to himself or others and the medication prescribed is in his best medical interest.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr. · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun
John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
Case opinions
MajorityKennedy, joined by unanimous (part II); Rehnquist, White, Blackmun, O'Connor, Scalia (parts I, III, IV, V)
ConcurrenceBlackmun
Concur/dissentStevens, joined by Brennan, Marshall
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XIV

Background

Respondent Harper, an inmate in the Washington prison system since 1976, was believed to be violent when not on antipsychotic medication. Twice he was transferred to the Special Offender Center (SOC), a state institution detaining prisoners who were diagnosed in psychiatric problems. While there, Harper was forced to take psychiatric medication against his will. The SOC followed its policies of institutional review for making a treatment decision to forcibly medicate an inmate.[1]

Upon hospitalizing Harper a second time at the Center, Harper filed suit in state court under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the Center failed to provide a judicial hearing before involuntarily medicating him, thus violating the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The trial court rejected his claim but the State Supreme Court reversed the decision and remanded the case back to the trial court stating that the State could administer antipsychotic medication to a competent, nonconsenting inmate only if, in a judicial hearing, at which the inmate had full adversarial procedural protections, the State could prove by "clear, cogent, and [494 U.S. 210, 211] convincing" evidence that the forced medication was necessary and effective for furthering an important state interest, weighing the individual's interest against that of the state.[1][2]

The United States Supreme Court granted a Writ of Certiorari.[3]

The American Psychological Association submitted an amicus brief in support of the inmate's right to a due process hearing, stating forced medication of an incarcerated inmate violated the due process, equal protection, and free speech clauses of the Constitution of the United States.[4]

Opinion of the Court

The Court reversed, finding the use of an internal institutional review was adequate in making treatment decisions in this case under the lesser standard of review embodied in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987).

The United States Supreme court ruled that the Due Process Clause permits a state to treat an incarcerated inmate having a serious mental disorder with antipsychotic medication against his will, under the condition that he is dangerous to himself or others and the medication prescribed is in his best medical interest.[1]

See also

References
  1. Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (1990).
  2. Gary, Melton (1997). Psychological Evaluations for the Courts: A Handbook for Mental Health Professionals and Lawyers (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press. pp. 134, 350–351. ISBN 978-1-57230-236-5.
  3. "Washington' et al., Petitioners v. Walter Harper". Retrieved 2007-10-10.
  4. "Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210". American Psychological Association. Retrieved 2007-10-10.

Further reading
  • Mclearen, Alix M.; Ryba, Nancy L. (2003). "Identifying Severely Mentally Ill Inmates: Can Small Jails Comply with Detection Standards?". Journal of Offender Rehabilitation. 37 (1): 25–40. doi:10.1300/J076v37n01_03.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.