This is interesting. A ruling by the Supreme Court allows forced medication of criminal defendants in order to make them capable of standing trial.
High Court Limits Gov't Drugging of Nonviolent Defendants
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court (search) on Monday limited the government's ability to forcibly medicate mentally ill criminal defendants to make them well enough to stand trial for fraud or other nonviolent charges.
The 6-3 ruling, a defeat for prosecutors, means that the government will have to revise a common practice now of putting defendants on anti-psychotic drugs for their trials. Justices said that the Constitution (search) allows the government to administer drugs only "in limited circumstances."The case required the court to balance the government's interest in punishing nonviolent crime with a person's constitutional right to control his or her body.
I understand the prosecution's point here; the strategy of avoiding prosectution by maintaining incompetency is reprehensible. On the other hand, the defendant does have the right to determine whether to accept or reject medical treatment. Where is the balancing point? When does the State have an interest compelling enough to allow them to violate a person's fundamental right?
Based on the language in Roe v Wade, I would have to say that the State's interest only becomes compelling when another life is threatened. That would limit the practice of forced medication to those facing prosecution for violent crimes, or defendants previously convicted of violent crimes. Even in those cases, competency at trial should not be confused with competency during the criminal act.
Posted by Rich at June 16, 2003 2:13 PM | TrackBackWell Rich I have to tell you that the MEDIA BIAS title and connection to Cronkite as a purveyor of LIBERAL Media Bias are the most biased things on your HOBBS Online post. You guys never quit. I don't even see the subject as a liberal / conservative issue and I take no issue with SCOTUS decision or the headline in either story.
The only reason this non-story of yours deserves comment from me is because of Bill Hobbs refusal to respond to my responses to his posts on SKB comments about the Halliburton Issue as it relates to the Journalistic Integrity of Mr. Hobbs.
You and I have discussed Cheney and Halliburton in detail yet Mr. Hobbs posted a TCS article by Melinda Kramer that contains an obvious falsehood and refuses to acknowledge or retract it.
Hobbs is losing his credibility as a proponent of Journalistic Integrity because of that and this bit of miniscule nitpicking about this story as a media bias issue is fuel on that fire.
all the best and a belated happy birthday.
Posted by: Barry Bozeman on June 16, 2003 11:34 PMI think you need to re-read the piece in question. I held up Cronkite as one of the last old school journalists. Nobody knew of his political ideology until after he retired from the news and started doing commentary. He was the last of the true professionals.
However, you have to admit that the two headlines did spin the story 180 degrees apart. The reuters headline made it sound like the SCOTUS approved the practice, while the AP headline, and both articles made it clear that the SCOTUS actually severely limited the practice. I'd also like to see where you got a lib/con comparison between the two stories, since I very carefully did not assign those labels to either story. What I wanted to point out was that bias, whether political, philosophical, or other, is now an inherent part of our news organizations, and the careful reader needs to be aware of that and acccount for it.
As for my own biases, they are state clearly and repeatedly. Anyone reading my page knows where I'm coming from, and I make no pretense to neutrality on this page. However, when I post for Bill, my opinions take a back seat to the story. Note that on the Hobbs story, I did not indicate which headline I found to be more accurate; I had to take out language that did so from the rough draft. On my page, however, I chose the more accurate (IMO) headline, and went with it.
And thanks for the birthday wishes. If I get what I wished for, you can really go after me, as I will have won the lottery and be one of the hated rich.*grin*
Posted by: rich on June 17, 2003 11:53 AMAs I say Rich, I do not believe you and I have any substantial differences on this story.
My differences are with Mr. Hobbs and he does not supply room for comment on his blog and will no participate in the RTB Forum.
That reduces me to getting in my comments on "other" comment sites.
Sorry bout that.
And I hope you do win that Lottery. It is the time to do it since you will keep most of it.
Posted by: Barry Bozeman on June 17, 2003 8:34 PM