Abstract
Involuntary administration of antipsychotic drugs also raises difficult legal issues within the domain of criminal law. Because antipsychotic drugs affect thought processes, when psychiatrists acting on behalf of the state administer these drugs to a criminal defendant, the state is controlling that defendant's mind to some extent. In Riggins v. Nevada, the United States Supreme Court recognized constitutional protection against involuntarily treating pretrial detainees with antipsychotic drugs. This Note will analyze the Court's decision and discuss unresolved problems concerning the effects of antipsychotic medication on the criminally accused.
Recommended Citation
Brian J. Doherty,
Antipsychotic Medication and the Criminal Defendant: Problems Persist Despite a Dose of Due Process,
58 Mo. L. Rev.
(1993)
Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol58/iss2/4