It has long been found necessary that a defendant be able to assist, understand and participate in

Therefore, since the Scarpelli, was not given a counselor and his probation was revoked without a hearing, a habeas corpus petition was filed. It was then the District Court acknowledge that revocation of probation without a hearing and counsel was a denial of due process.(Gagnon v. Scarpelli 411 U.S. 773 (1973). (n.d.).The Court of Appeal affirmed that using the same specification for parolee under the Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, in which states that due process is required preliminary and final revocation hearing for probationer case. The hearing will determine if a counsel is needed for an indigent probationer or parolee according to due process requirement in each individual case. However, the state is not obliged to assist in providing a counselor, unless the individual is indigent Nevertheless, it would be wise to assist those that are indigent probationer or parolee in having difficult in sharing their side of the story with the facts when there is no witness or presentation of evidence (United State Supreme Court Gagnon v. Scarpelli, (1973) No. 71-1225, n.d.). It is also, suggested when a request for a counsel is refused, and then the refusal should be written in the

Four years prior to this case, the Supreme Court ruled that “the Constitution bars states from executing prisoners who are insane.” Then a few moments later after an inmate submitted an appeal on death row, The Supreme Court agreed “to decide the further question of whether a state can, in effect, make a prisoner eligible for execution by administering anti-psychotic medication against his will.” In the Perry v Louisiana case, Keith B. Nordyre argues for Perry’s rights, whether or not they

The case of Mills v. Rogers has a significant importance in virtue of the human, civil and constitutional rights of the patients who are hospitalized at mental institutions. Despite the fact whether the patient was there voluntarily or contrary, Rogers believed that the institutions should respect the patient’s decision when it involved antipsychotic drug treatments. Rubie Rogers was a 36-year old black woman who voluntarily institutionalized herself at the Boston State Hospital (BSH). Rogers suffered from hallucinations along with delusions and acquired a history of thought disorder such as violent behavior. Before Mills v. Rogers, a prior lawsuit was filed.

One drug court is unlike any other in the country. Judge Williams’s courts in Georgia’s Glynn and Camden Counties do not honor a major component of rule of law—due process. Due process is fair treatment through the judicial system. It includes, among a few other rights, the rights to receive an impartially fair trial and subsequent reasonable punishment, to grieve or complain against the charges and government official in charge, and to appeal. Judge Amanda William’s drug court is guilty of due process violations in each of the three mentioned major categories of due process. In order to stop the due process violations and bring drug courts around the US into compliance with the rule of law, the drug court system in the US must be

Over the past thirty years, there has been a 500% increase in the U.S incarceration rate. (The Sentencing project, 2014) Advances in medicine, such as the discovery of psychoactive drugs, led to the deinstitutionalization of mentally ill patients from psychiatric hospitals. With a long record of horrific abuse,

While much discussion has been had in respect to the legislation of the Affordable Care Act and how it would impact the citizens of the United States, not a lot of thought is given to the medical state of the inmates incarcerated in North America. According to the eighth amendment, cruel and unusual punishment should not be inflicted upon inmates (U.S. Const. amend.VIII). Not issuing the proper medication to a pain stricken cancer patient or prenatal vitamins to an expectant mother can be looked at as cruel and unusual punishment. This paper aims to determine if healthcare in the United States is unconstitutional in its delivery. Healthcare at both federal and state prisons along with detention centers will be examined for this study. I am

Treatments are provided for the inmate’s best interest and what may improve their mental and physical health, even though mentally ill inmates have their rights in denying treatment they

Every individual is accorded with civil liberties which are protected both by the federal and state laws. They cannot be deprived with their liberties without due process of law except when there are compelling reasons to do so. One of the processes which deprive impaired persons from their civil liberties is civil commitment. The State of Utah (2016) defines civil commitment as a legal process of incarcerating an individual with symptoms involving several mental illnesses by providing compulsory, court-ordered treatment. Individuals are detained and are restricted from their movements because the illnesses they have may pose imminent danger to others or even themselves. For the purposes of this paper, the topic to be assessed

In October 2003, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals was called upon to decide whether the State could execute a forcibly medicated prisoner in order to meet the competence requirements for proceeding with an execution. The ruling allowed Arkansas officials to force Charles Laverne Singleton, a schizophrenic prisoner convicted of murder, to take drugs that would render him sane enough to be executed by lethal injection. In 1990 the Supreme Court made a decision that was of great consequence to this case. In Washington v. Harper, the court permitted prison authorities to order forcible administration of antipsychotic drugs on the condition that three requirements were met. The requirements being that the prisoner must have a serious mental illness,

The current method to heal mentally ill patients in the United States is mostly done through forced medication. Elyn Saks believes there may be a better way to help the men and women suffering with a mental illness than forced medication. “The Consent Dilemma” shows how the current method of forced medication is outdated and how there is a more effective method to help people that have a mental illness. All the rhetoric devices are used in “The Consent Dilemma” by Elyn Saks in the magazine Politico. The rhetoric devices are used to show that the current system used to help the mentally ill is in need of an update.

The case of Mills v. Rogers has a significant importance in virtue of the human, civil and constitutional rights of the patients who are hospitalized at mental institutions. Despite the fact whether the patient was there voluntarily or contrary, Rogers believed that the institutions should respect the patient’s decision when it involved antipsychotic drug treatments. Rubie Rogers was a 36-year old black woman who voluntarily institutionalized herself at the Boston State Hospital (BSH). Rogers suffered from hallucinations along with delusions and acquired a history of thought disorder such as violent behavior. Before Mills v. Rogers, a prior lawsuit was filed.

Psychiatric care 80 years ago was quite different to how standards are set today. The cases of Youngberg v. Romeo and Wyatt v. Stickney both played big roles in developing standards that help maintain humane conditions in institutions nowadays. Both cases played a part in determining the rights of involuntarily committed patients under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Before both cases, patients may have been living in inhumane conditions, refused the right to psychiatric care, and neglected proper habilitation. But now, standards have been set and it’s been deemed appropriate that involuntarily committed patients’ rights must be protected under the Fourteenth Amendment with such standards.

This generalized statement can be proven based off the issue going back to judges playing a heavy role in determining the defendants drug treatment plan and its precedents in making sure the defendant follows through (NADCP, 2007). The case of Alexander v. State raised the concern of the fifth Morrissey requirement when the defendant brought his case to trial on the basis that the judge was “inherently biased” in both sending one to a treatment proceedings and how the treatment is conducted (Oram & Gleckker, 2006; NADCP, 2007; Alexander v. State, 48 P.3d 110, 2002). The Oklahoma court recognized the bias that occurs when a judge plays the role as the problem-solvers by administrating, evaluating and monitoring the defendant’s participation of the drug treatment as well being a judicial adjudicator. Based on this biased, the court determined that a defendant can object to the presiding drug court judge by filing a pre-hearing or a motion to recuse. The motion to recuse would automatically be granted, which permits the defendant to disqualify a judge without cause (Oram & Gleckker, 2006; NADCP, 2007; Alexander v. State, 48 P.3d 110, 2002). In the concurring opinion, Judge Lumpkin provided alternative methods for protecting defendant’s procedural due process rights. Such methods

While the due process promises “fundamental fairness and decency,” it does not promise that everyone will agree on what is fair and decent (Johnson, 2016). Throughout history we have clear examples of due process failing. During the 1920’s the state of Virginia’s approved a law to eliminate defects of the human race through sterilization of inmates in state institutions. Carrie Buck a patient at the Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feeble-minded in Lynchburg was the first woman to be sterilized under this law. In an effort to avoid sterilization, the case was tried in the Supreme Court case Buck v. Bell. The case, defended by the author of the law Aubrey Strode and tried by his childhood friend and sterilization supporter Irving

Jennifer, you bring up excellent points about how certain mental conditions, and how the protection of life may alter a person’s ability to receive those fundamental rights because they are unable to make clear decisions regarding their care. That is why the due process in the civil commitment procedure is necessary because those basic rights are being impacted while removing the essential freedoms of those individuals. They have to be determined a danger to themselves, others, or society as a whole for the emergency 72-hour hold to be initiated. Individuals can have thoughts that are not realistic and be considered ok; then it validates a psychiatric evaluation or screening by the prepetition screening team (PST) to review the matter and decide