Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Criminal Justice Policy Review
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Alexander, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

The United States Supreme Court And An Inmate's Right To Refuse Mental Health Treatment

Rudolph Alexander, JR

Ohio State University

The courts have stated categorically and unequivocally that civilly committed persons have a constitutional right to refuse psychotropic drugs. However, the courts have never spoken so firmly with respect to prisoners. Prisoners have enjoyed a rather fragile, indirect right to resist mental health treatment, which is often administered under the guise of aversive therapy or which is actually unwarranted. In 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court had an opportunity in Washington v. Harper to afford prisoners the same right other hospitalized individuals have to refuse psychotropic drugs. Instead, the Court chose to sanction the involuntary treatment of mentally ill prisoners. The author of this essay analyzes this decision and its implications for the criminal justice system and the rights of prisoners.

Criminal Justice Policy Review, Vol. 5, No. 3, 225-240 (1991)
DOI: 10.1177/088740349100500304
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Criminal Justice ReviewHome page
M. A. Farkas and A. Stichman
Sex Offender Laws: Can Treatment, Punishment, Incapacitation, and Public Safety be Reconciled?
Criminal Justice Review, September 1, 2002; 27(2): 256 - 283.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Criminal Justice and BehaviorHome page
R. ALEXANDER Jr.
The Civil Commitment of Sex Offenders in Light of Foucha v. Louisiana
Criminal Justice and Behavior, December 1, 1993; 20(4): 371 - 387.
[Abstract]