Everything about Riggins V Nevada totally explained
Riggins v. Nevada,
Circumstances
David Riggins went to the
Nevada apartment of a man, Wade, who was later found stabbed to death. Approximately two days later, Riggins was arrested for the
capital murder and
robbery of Wade. After his arrest he complained of
hearing voices and
sleeplessness, telling the jail psychiatrist that he'd taken
Mellaril in the past. The psychiatrist prescribed him increasing doses of Mellaril at Riggins' request, until Riggins was taking 800
milligrams a day, considered a very high dose of that medication.
Appeals
Riggins appealed to the
Nevada Supreme Court on the grounds that forced administration of Mellaril denied him the ability to assist in his own defense and gave a false impression of his attitude, appearance, and demeanor at trial. Riggins claimed that the forced medication wasn't justified, as the State hadn't demonstrated a need to administer Mellaril nor did it explore less restrictive alternatives to giving him 800 milligrams of the drug each day. However, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed Riggins' convictions and death sentence. Riggins then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court. A seven-member majority held that the state didn't show that antipsychotic medication was medically appropriate and didn't demonstrate that it considered less intrusive means in obtaining its goal of trying Riggins.
The Court stated that Riggins'
Eighth Amendment argument that the forcible administration of antipsychotic medication denied him the chance to show the jury his true mental state at the sentencing hearing wasn't raised in the petition for certiorari and therefore wasn't addressed by the court.
In
Washington v. Harper the individual protesting the involuntary medication was already incarcerated. The court suggested in this case that a competent person has the right to refuse if the medication is administered for other than treatment reasons to a person not dangerous or extremely ill, but it accepted the institution's procedures for making such treatment decisions. However, Riggins wasn't convicted at the time he was involuntarily medicated. In
Riggins v. Nevada the court said that not only had the medication to be a medically appropriate means of attaining an important state objective such as competency, but the medication must be the least intrusive means of attaining the objective. However, it's important to note that although the treatment must be the least intrusive (for example, to allow the individual to retain a clear head to consult with his attorney as well as to avoid medication
side effects), the court didn't say that involuntary medication is never appropriate to achieve the state's goal.
[Further Information]
Get more info on 'Riggins V Nevada'.
|
External Link Exchanges
Do you know how hard it is to get a link from a large encyclopaedia? Well we're different and will prove it. To get a link from us just add the following HTML to your site on a relevant page:
<a href="http://riggins_v__nevada.totallyexplained.com">Riggins v. Nevada Totally Explained</a>
Then simply click through this link from your web page. Our crawlers will verify your link, extract the title of your web page and instantly add a link back to it. If you like you can remove the words Totally Explained and embed the link in article text.
As long as your link remains in place, we'll keep our link to you right here. Please play fair - our crawlers are watching. Your site must be closely related to this one's topic. Any kind of spamming, dubious practises or removing the link will result in your link from us being dropped and, potentially, your whole site being banned. |
