Loughner loses 3 appeals over forced medication

[Amerigo Vespucci]

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]

1. This is a tough situation with persuasive arguments on both sides.

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]

2. no they unless one takes a weapon and starts killing people

[cbayer]

3. I'm not clear on what you are saying here

[Tunkamerica]

11. i think self explanatory if they

start

[Wait Wut]

4. I think he needs to be medicated.

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]

8. Here is the rub, though.

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]

12. I believe that the specifics of his meds would be admissable.

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]

18. I think, but I am not sure, that forensic hospitals are for those

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]

5. This isn't a difficult question at all if you look at the bottom line...

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]

9. I might make the argument that if he is stark raving mad then

it is more humane to keep him in a hospital for the rest of his life.

That would achieve the objective you outline.

[wandy]

15. No problem with that at all.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

27. One of my relatives was murdered by an unmedicated schizophrenic drifter

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]

28. I am so sorry for your loss and agree with your last statement.

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]

32. The problem isn't necessarily access

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]

6. Even Judy Clarke, Kaczynski's lawyer argues against it

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

Prison officials say that Loughner had thrown plastic chairs in his cell and had spit on his own attorney, Courthouse News Service reports.
http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2011/06/should-jared-loughner-be-forcibly-drugged-in-jail.html

[Lil Missy]

7. He needs his medication. n/t

[cbayer]

10. He is very likely to benefit from his medication.

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]

14. I haven't followed this, but is that the only purpose?

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]

20. The issue of forced medication is always very, very tricky.

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]

22. Actually, I think this is playing out to the benefit of the Defense

(and they know it).

Making a huge stink over forced medication practically writes the verdict of "not mentally competent".

[Lil Missy]

19. He's not being medicated against HIS will. It's against his LAWYER'S will. n/t

[cbayer]

21. Are you sure? Or are the lawyers defending his refusal of meds?

If he was willing to take meds voluntarily, I don't think there would be any issue here at all.

[Lil Missy]

30. The defense wants him in his crazy state for trial so he can be found not guilty due to insanity.

[jakeXT]

31. So he is spitting on his lawyer, because he wants more meds?

[The Straight Story]

13. His body, his choice? (nt)

[Ruby the Liberal]

16. Yes, but how does that ensure a fair trial? nt

[minavasht]

24. Is there any doubt

that he was the person who pulled the trigger?

[Ruby the Liberal]

25. They are going for diminished capacity.

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]

26. It's not really his choice if he is too sick to know his condition. n/t

[watrwefitinfor]

17. There was a brilliant episode of Boston Legal

that dealt with this question. I miss that show.

Difficult question.

Wat

On edit: might have been "The Practice".

[cbayer]

23. It's been a longstanding issue in forensic psychiatry.

And a really fascinating one that spans ethics, justice, free will, legal responsibility, physician responsibility.

[bluestateguy]

29. This punkass needs to take responsibility for what he did and cool it with the frivilous appeals

nt