What are the consequences of a defendant being forced to take anti psychotic drugs

Asked about 3 years ago - Chicago, IL

Jared Lee Loughner, the shooter of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, may be forced to take anti-psychotics in order to be considered mentally competent enough to stand trial. If a defendant has to take anti-psychotic drugs in order to stand trial, isn't that almost a tacit admission by the prosecution that the defendant is not guilty for reason of insanity?

Attorney answers (3)

  1. Robert Alan Beattey

    Contributor Level 8


    Best Answer
    chosen by asker

    Answered . Great question: The Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 reads, in part:

    "It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution under any federal statute that, at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts. Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense."

    This is a change from previous insanity defense law. And it's pretty tough to prove that a person was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or wrongfulness of his acts. Note that even if a defendant hears voices and honestly cannot resist complying with the voices because of mental illness, so long as the defendant knows his actions are wrong, then the mental illness is not a defense.

    Mental competency of an accused to stand trial is a different matter - the pertinent statutory provisions under the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 are 18 U.S.C. ยงยง 4241, 4246, and 4247.

    In short, competency to stand trial is about whether a defendant knows who the players in the system are and what their roles are (i.e. the judge, jury, prosecutor, and defendant's attorney); can understand what he's being charged with and why; and can assist with the his own defense. Thus it makes sense, the law says, to try to restore a defendant's ability to appreciate theses issues when a court finds the defendant not presently competent to stand trial.

    The Supreme Court decisions on competency to stand trial, Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (1966), and Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (1975), have little to do with the insanity defense, since the standards are quite different. See Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960).

    Competency to stand trial decisions focus on whether a defendant can appreciate what's going on in the courtroom and with his lawyers and what's at stake. This can change over time.

    Insanity defense issues focuses on culpability for the criminal actions, which is in theory fixed at the time of the event.

    Licensed in Washington. This is NOT legal advice and you would be foolish to rely upon it, so don't. The... more
  2. Owen David Greenberg

    Contributor Level 14

    Answered . Fitness to stand trial and sanity are different determinations.

  3. Donald N. Macneil

    Contributor Level 14

    Answered . Sanity and fitness are two separate issues.

    I hope that my response was helpful and informative. However, my answer should not be considered or relied upon... more

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask a Lawyer

Get free answers from experienced attorneys.


Ask now

28,751 answers this week

2,942 attorneys answering

Ask a Lawyer

Get answers from top-rated lawyers.

  • It's FREE
  • It's easy
  • It's anonymous

28,751 answers this week

2,942 attorneys answering