[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-447102-105":59,"doc-detail-447102-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","washington-crime-news-services-vol21-no5-mentally-ill-prisoners-supreme-court-gives-prison-officials-wide-authority-to-use-drugs-on-inmates","WASHINGTON CRIME NEWS SERVICES - Vol.21 No.5 - Mentally Ill Prisoners: Supreme Court Gives Prison Officials Wide Authority to Use Drugs on Inmates","","Supreme Court guidance in a Washington case grants prison officials broad authority to administer antipsychotic, mind-altering drugs to mentally ill inmates without prior court review. The ruling, issued in a 6-3 decision, says existing administrative safeguards—doctor review, independent committee scrutiny, and appeal—meet due process when the inmate is dangerous and treatment is medically in the inmate’s interest. A dissent argues liberty interests require stronger protection against unwanted drugging. Related coverage summarizes broader criminal-justice impacts on young Black males.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":35,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/healthcare/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/washington-crime-news-services-vol21-no5-mentally-ill-prisoners-supreme-court-gives-prison-officials-wide-authority-to-use-drugs-on-inmates/447102/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/washington-crime-news-services-vol21-no5-mentally-ill-prisoners-supreme-court-gives-prison-officials-wide-authority-to-use-drugs-on-inmates/447102.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Valentina","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-30","2026-09-29",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":34},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What authority did the Supreme Court grant prison officials in the Washington case?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"The Court held that, under the Due Process Clause, prison officials may treat a seriously mentally ill inmate with antipsychotic drugs against the inmate’s will when the inmate is dangerous and the treatment is in the inmate’s medical interest.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What safeguards did the majority say were adequate to protect inmates’ interests?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"The majority cited administrative procedures that include review by an independent committee of doctors and the right of appeal as sufficient to protect prisoners’ interests.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"Why did Justice Stevens dissent?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"Stevens argued that citizens’ liberty interests to resist mind-altering drugs arise from the nation’s most basic values and that the committee structure does not ensure independent professional judgment.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},447102,1790767049,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":34,"category_name":35,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":34,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145,"preview_page_count":4},13056703020460,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/be000253dac470eee5d?_k=1778207105932848923","WASHINGTON CRIME NEWS SERVICES°ISSN 0010-9045CDRRECTIDNS  \nVol.21 No.5  \nMentally Ill Prisoners:  \n# SUPREME COURT GIVES PRISONOFFICIALS WIDE AUTHORITYTO USE DRUGS ON INMATES\n\nRules In Washington State Case  \nThe U.S.Supreme Court,in a case fromWashington,on Feb.27 gave prison officials wideauthority to force mentally ill inmates to be treatedwith mind altering drugs.  \nThe court,in a 6-3 decision written by JusticeAnthony Kennedy,ruled that the state of Wash-ington did not have to go to a court before prisonofficials could administer antipsychotic drugs to aninmate.  \nThe court said that administrative proceduresused by the state,which include review by anindependent committee of doctors and the right ofappeal,were adequate to protect prisoners'inter-ests.  \n“We hold that,given the requirements of theprison environment,the Due Process Clause(ofthe Constitution)permits the state to treat a prisoninmate who has a serious mental illness with anti-psychotic drugs against his will,if the inmate isdangerous to himself or others and the treat-ment is in the inmate's medical interest,\"thecourt said.  \nIn dissent,Justice John Paul Stevens,joinedby Justices William Brennan and ThurgoodMarshall,said the “liberty interests of citizens toresist the administration of mind altering drugsarises from our nation's most basic values.”  \n(See MENTALLY ILL,page two)  \nMarch 7.1990  \nIN THIS ISSUE                    \nMENTALLY ILLINMATES:  \nS.C.OKs Drug Therapy……       …         1BLACK MALES:Report Analyzes  \nImpact Of Criminal Justice System    ……………1MIRANDA BEHIND BARS:S.C.Considering Case...5NSA:Revives A Tradtion……       …………5JOB LISTINGS…  …             ……6LETTER:NYC's Floating Jail…    ……………6CONGRESS:Urged To  \nReform Death Penalty Process………   …  ……7CAMPHILLRIOT:Analysis Continues…      …8  \nN.C.DEATH SENTENCES:Law Unconstitutional..10  \nNEW REPORT SHOWS DEVASTATINGIMPACT OF CRIMINALJUSTICESYSTEM ON YOUNG BLACKS  \n# Calls For Major Shifts In ResourcesFrom Reaction To Prevention\n\nNearly one out of every four young blackmales nationwide is under the control of thecriminal justice system—prison,jail,probation,or parole.This new finding represents the highestfigure yet recorded and is one of the conclusions ofa report released Feb.27 by The Sentencing Pro-ject.Comparable rates for young white maleswithin the criminaljustice system are one in 16;for Hispanics,one in 10(see Table 1).  \n(See BLACK MALES,page two)  \n# CORRECTIONS DIGEST\n\n(MENTALLY ILL,continued from poge one)  \nHe said that the administrative proceduresused in the state of Washington were not enough toprotect the inmate from unneeded and unwanteddrugs.  \n\"The mere fact that a decision is made by adoctor does not make it'certain that professionaljudgment in fact was exercised,'\"Stevens said.\"The structure of the(committee)virtually insuresthat it will not be....Institutional control infectsthe decisionmakers and the entire procedure.”  \nThe drugging case began when WalterHarper,serving time on robbery charges,sued thestate to halt the involuntary administration ofantipsychotic drugs.  \nAccording to state records,Harper had vio-lent incidents,including assaulting two nurseswhile on a brief parole,and had received psychi-atric treatment and had consented to the use ofdrugs.  \nOn two occasions,he was transferred to theSpecial Offender Center,an institute for convictedfelons with serious mental illnesses,where he wasdiagnosed as suffering from a manic-depressivedisorder.  \nHe was given powerful mind-altering drugs tocombat the illness and eventually fought to stopthem.  \nHarper argued the drug he was given caninduce catatonic-like states,alter electro-encepha-lographic tracings and cause swelling of the brain.He said it can also include drowsiness,excitement,restlessness,bizarre dreams,hypertension,nausea,vomiting,loss of appetite,salivation,dry mouth,headache,blurred vision and muscle spasms.Atone time Harper said he would rather die than takethe drug.  \nWhile lower courts agreed he had","cbCaifYVguKWB846","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaifYVguKWB846","pdf",3110609,11,"English","# SUPREME COURT GIVES PRISON OFFICIALS WIDE AUTHORITY TO USE DRUGS ON INMATES\n## Rules in Washington State Case\n# CORRECTIONS DIGEST\n## Mentally Ill (continued)\n# BLACK MALES\n## Calls for Major Shifts in Resources: From Reaction to Prevention\n# IN THIS ISSUE","[{\"question\":\"What authority did the Supreme Court grant prison officials in the Washington case?\",\"answer\":\"The Court held that, under the Due Process Clause, prison officials may treat a seriously mentally ill inmate with antipsychotic drugs against the inmate’s will when the inmate is dangerous and the treatment is in the inmate’s medical interest.\"},{\"question\":\"What safeguards did the majority say were adequate to protect inmates’ interests?\",\"answer\":\"The majority cited administrative procedures that include review by an independent committee of doctors and the right of appeal as sufficient to protect prisoners’ interests.\"},{\"question\":\"Why did Justice Stevens dissent?\",\"answer\":\"Stevens argued that citizens’ liberty interests to resist mind-altering drugs arise from the nation’s most basic values and that the committee structure does not ensure independent professional judgment.\"}]","WASHINGTON CRIME NEWS SERVICES - Vol.21 No.5 - Mentally Ill Prisoners: Supreme Court Gives Prison Officials Wide Authority to Use Drugs on Inmates | PDF",1790718803,28]