Forced drugging of individuals to make them competent to stand trial or be executed is perhaps the latest encroachment on an individual’s fundamental right to freedom of thought. Drug Policy Alliance believes that forced drugging of criminal defendants exposes the hypocrisy of the government’s war on drugs. While the government demands that individuals be free of dangerous and illicit substances, it stands by its belief that they can force individuals to use mind-altering substances. 

In 2002 a Federal Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled that pre-trial detainees who have been convicted of no crimes may be forcibly injected with anti-psychotic medication for the sole purpose of rendering them competent to stand trial.  This case, United States v. Charles Thomas Sell, involved a Missouri dentist charged with insurance fraud, a non-violent crime, who suffers from delusional disorder. Federal prosecutors wanted to administer Mr. Sell anti-psychotic drugs in order to make him competent to stand trial. The United States Supreme Court decided to review Mr. Sell’s case.

Drug Policy Alliance, which believes that people - not government - should decide what drugs they take, filed an amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court in support of Charles Thomas Sell, arguing that forcible administration of potent, mind-altering substances interferes with an individual’s bodily integrity. Mr. Sell's case was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in March 2003.

In June 2003, the United States Supreme Court ruled, in a 6-3 decision, that the forcible administration of anti-psychotic drugs is acceptable under certain circumstances.  The Sell decision opens the door for prosecutors to have greater discretion in asking the Court to forcibly drug criminal defendants, including those who are alleged to have committed non-violent crimes and who have yet to be found guilty.  The Supreme Court ruled that forcible drugging can significantly further the important interests of the Government in achieving a fair and speedy trial, even in the case of non-violent offenses.  However, the Court also places limits on the circumstances in which a court can permit the state to forcibly drug someone.  Specifically, there must be no alternative, less intrusive means to achieve the same results that forcible drugging might bring, and that the administration of drugs must be medically appropriate.  The Court remanded Dr. Sell’s case to the Eighth Circuit, noting that the Government would have to meet these newly articulated standards in order to forcibly drug Dr. Sell.  The Court’s opinion was authored by Justice Breyer and joined by Justices Rehnquist, Stevens, Kennedy, Souter and Ginsburg.

Links:

Amicus brief of the Center for Cognitive Liberty and Ethics in the Sell case

Press release: Criminal Defendants Can be Forced to Take Mind-Altering Substances Before Standing Trial, According to Today’s Supreme Court Decision [6/16/03]

Eighth Circuit rules that death row inmate can be force-drugged in order to make him mentally fit for execution.