Ought the state use non-consensual treatment to restore trial competence?

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review


The important question of the legality of the state obliging trial incompetent defendants to receive competency-restoring treatment against their wishes, is one that has received much attention by legal scholars. Surprisingly, however, little attention has been paid to the, in many ways more fundamental, moral question of whether the state ought to administer such treatments. The aim of this paper is to start filling this gap in the literature. I begin by offering some reasons for thinking it morally acceptable to, at least sometimes, oblige trial-incompetent defendants to receive competency-restoring treatments. The paper then discusses whether three prominent arguments (and their variations) offered by legal scholars against using non-consensual treatment to restore trial competence provide grounds for thinking there to be a general moral prohibition against these treatments. I argue that they do not.
TidsskriftRes Publica
Udgave nummer1
Sider (fra-til)111-127
Antal sider17
StatusUdgivet - 2023

Citer dette