Compulsory Medication, Trial Competence, and Penal Theory

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Resumé

Due process requires that a criminal defendant must satisfy a number of minimal conditions with regard to his/her cognitive abilities, i.e. that the defendant possesses trial competence. But what if a defendant —for instance, as a result of a mental disorder —does not possess the requisite competence? Would it be morally acceptable for the state to forcibly subject a defendant to psychotropic medication in order to restore his/her competence to stand trial? In this article it is argued that the reason that has constituted the main argument in favor of forcible medication of defendants —namely, that the state has an essential interest in convicting and sentencing defendants who are guilty of crime —is not as strong as has been assumed and may even, under certain conditions, speak against the use of forcible medication of trial incompetent defendants.
OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftLaw, ethics and philosophy
Vol/bind4
Sider (fra-til)61-82
StatusUdgivet - 2016

Citer dette

@article{bfad42a1b8184eb3a51faefe09c07a40,
title = "Compulsory Medication, Trial Competence, and Penal Theory",
abstract = "Due process requires that a criminal defendant must satisfy a number of minimal conditions with regard to his/her cognitive abilities, i.e. that the defendant possesses trial competence. But what if a defendant —for instance, as a result of a mental disorder —does not possess the requisite competence? Would it be morally acceptable for the state to forcibly subject a defendant to psychotropic medication in order to restore his/her competence to stand trial? In this article it is argued that the reason that has constituted the main argument in favor of forcible medication of defendants —namely, that the state has an essential interest in convicting and sentencing defendants who are guilty of crime —is not as strong as has been assumed and may even, under certain conditions, speak against the use of forcible medication of trial incompetent defendants.",
author = "Jesper Ryberg",
year = "2016",
language = "English",
volume = "4",
pages = "61--82",
journal = "Law, ethics and philosophy",
issn = "2341-1465",

}

Compulsory Medication, Trial Competence, and Penal Theory. / Ryberg, Jesper.

I: Law, ethics and philosophy, Bind 4, 2016, s. 61-82.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Compulsory Medication, Trial Competence, and Penal Theory

AU - Ryberg, Jesper

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - Due process requires that a criminal defendant must satisfy a number of minimal conditions with regard to his/her cognitive abilities, i.e. that the defendant possesses trial competence. But what if a defendant —for instance, as a result of a mental disorder —does not possess the requisite competence? Would it be morally acceptable for the state to forcibly subject a defendant to psychotropic medication in order to restore his/her competence to stand trial? In this article it is argued that the reason that has constituted the main argument in favor of forcible medication of defendants —namely, that the state has an essential interest in convicting and sentencing defendants who are guilty of crime —is not as strong as has been assumed and may even, under certain conditions, speak against the use of forcible medication of trial incompetent defendants.

AB - Due process requires that a criminal defendant must satisfy a number of minimal conditions with regard to his/her cognitive abilities, i.e. that the defendant possesses trial competence. But what if a defendant —for instance, as a result of a mental disorder —does not possess the requisite competence? Would it be morally acceptable for the state to forcibly subject a defendant to psychotropic medication in order to restore his/her competence to stand trial? In this article it is argued that the reason that has constituted the main argument in favor of forcible medication of defendants —namely, that the state has an essential interest in convicting and sentencing defendants who are guilty of crime —is not as strong as has been assumed and may even, under certain conditions, speak against the use of forcible medication of trial incompetent defendants.

M3 - Journal article

VL - 4

SP - 61

EP - 82

JO - Law, ethics and philosophy

JF - Law, ethics and philosophy

SN - 2341-1465

ER -