Washington v. Harper and Involuntary Psychiatric Medication in Prisons: How Wide the Window?

• NCJ Number: 130665
• Journal: Journal of Offender Rehabilitation Volume: 16 Issue: 3/4 Dated: (1991) Pages: 193-200
• Author(s): N J Pallone
• Date Published: 1991
• Length: 8 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Survey
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

Unlike earlier court decisions, which upheld a mental patient's right to refuse the intrusion of psychoactive medication even when that patient was involuntarily committed, the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington v. Harper held that the State has the right to administer medication to prisoners under certain circumstances.

Abstract

Those circumstances were defined as situations in which inmates with serious mental illnesses present a danger to themselves or others. The author argues that this use of the "clear and imminent danger" principle contravenes earlier decisions in which mental health professionals were given the responsibility of warning persons who were in danger of being victimized by mentally ill patients. In discussing this new development, the concepts of specific versus generalized danger, and proximate versus remote danger, are described. The author notes the situation of neurogenically violent offenders in custody, who would seem to fall within the scope of Harper as well as some questions posed by the potential introduction of lithium into prison water supplies. 13 references (Author abstract modified)