Case Analysis Essay on Sell v. United States

Introduction

Sell, who was a petitioner, was initially found by the Federal Magistrate Judge of having an extended history of the mental condition, but despite his state of mind the magistrate still found him capable of standing hearing on accounts of deception and would be unconfined on bail. The magistrate later came to revoke his bond since Sell's condition deteriorated. However, Sell decided to ask the magistrate consider him as being competent to stand trial on his accounts on fraud and attempted murder. While the Magistrate discovered that Sell was the Federal Prisoners Medical Center, he was also found to be psychologically unable to stand to hear. He was ordered full hospitalization in an attempt to decide whether he could regain an improved mental capacity that would allow him to proceed with his hearing (Rogers, 2006). While at the Medical Center, Sell refused to take his antipsychotic medication. As a result, the Magistrate ordered a forced administration of the antipsychotic drugs on sale. Despite Sell being forced to take his antipsychotic drugs which were erroneous, it was necessary for the Magistrate to use all means to make him participate in his trial for crimes on fraud and attempted murder.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Sell had proved that he was a threat to himself as well as others. Forced suppository was the only practical means of representing Sell fit to stand to hear for the crimes he had committed (Rogers, 2006). But the District Court found that forced medication by the Magistrate was erroneous, but it was necessary to serve the interests of the government in the process of gaining an arbitration of his innocence or guilt. Regarding the Eighth Circuit, riveting focus on the on accounts of fraud, it was realized that the management had made it a priority to bring Sell to trial, and the treatment was necessary since it would enable Sell participate in his trail.

Legal Rights on Forced Medication

The Eighth Circuit had the right to jurisdiction for them to hear the appeal. The pretrial order from the District Court could have acted as a warranty order regarding the exclusions to the rule that only the final rulings from a federal magistrate can be taken for an appeal. The request by the federal magistrate had to conclusively determine any disputable questions regarding whether Sell had a legal right to decline any form of forced medication. The laws also resolve a critical issue for any unintentional medical treatment which can raise queries of the apparent significance by the constitution (Calabrese, 2015).

Nonetheless, the issue on Sell was effectively unreviewable on appeal his the court viewed him as a criminal who wants to have an easy time in the court by failing to participate in his ruling for his crimes on fraud and attempted murder. An acquittal sine Sell could not undo his forced medication was presenting himself as potential harm not only to himself but also to those around him. The federal government is mandated by the constitution to keep all the citizens from any possible prejudice by deploying the most effective means to prevent a situation under control, and in this case, Sell had to undergo forced medication.

Sell had to participate in the hearing of his case, since it was the only way that the federal magistrate would have given a ruling or decision on when the case would be presented before the court as they provide more time to gather any tangible evidence that would have made Sell culpable and be kept behind bars. Sell had committed state crimes punishable by spending an extended period behind bars, and that could have made him try some tricks to derail the hearing. He attempted murder and at the same time refused to take his medication. This in itself indicates that Sell was a threat to the public, therefore, giving him a bail can be a wrong idea since he was still capable of inflicting more harm to those around him.

Under the framework of Riggins v.Nevada, 504 U.S 127 and Washington v Harper 494 U.S, the government is permitted by the constitution to involuntarily administer any form of medication and especially the antipsychotic drugs with the intentions of rendering a competent defendant who is mentally ill to stand trial for severe criminal charges. This happens only is the treatment is appropriate medically and has to be approved by a qualified doctor (Nnsa, 2016).

In the case of Sell, the magistrate did not violate the rights of Sell, since he was mentally ill, had refused to voluntary take his antipsychotic drugs as requested by the doctors and he had committed the crimes of fraud and attempted murder which according to the constitution are serious crimes. However, the treatment should in no way affect them by having side effects or affect their reasoning which can undermine the fairness of their trail and also it should not make them take into account any less intrusive alternatives (Meyer & Weaver, 2014). The medication also has to be medically proven that it will not affect them during the trial since it should only be meant to put their mental state under control.

A forced medication in a law case has to meet some criteria for it to be executed by the court. Constrained medication instances are usually rare. First, the court has to determine whether the essential interests of the government are at stake. The government always has a great interest in ensuring offenders of major crimes such as murder, terrorism, corruption, and fraud have to be punished by the law.

Nonetheless, the court has to carefully scrutinize the facts of each case to determine whether the culprit can be subjected to any form of forced medication if their state of health especially those with mental illness deserve that kind of treatment. Even under after the defendant meets all these conditions and forced treatment is the only viable solution to make them stand trial, the government is mandated to ensure there is fairness and that the medication will not affect them in whatever way during and after it has been administered to them.

Forced medication as it was in the case of Sell, is to ensure that justice is served where it is deserved. The crimes that Sell had committed are sure proof that he would need to be kept in confinement either in a hospital or behind bars for his crimes. That would be the best way that the people he had offended could get justice since despite him being mentally ill, serious crimes had committed and someone had to pay for them (Hsieh & Molodynski, 2016).

If Sell goes home free, this action could taint the image of the federal magistrates and become an indication of significant levels of incompetence in their failure to execute law offenders and can lead to chaos erupting. Offenders such as Sell should be made to pay for their crimes by the use of any possible method so that they can serve as an example to the society that crime does not pay and its repercussions are very detrimental to an individual. As a result, many can learn from such cases and shun away from any form of criminal activities.

Conclusion

The government in its quest to maintain law and foster peace among its people has to do all it takes to punish those who fail to adhere to these objectives. Sell in our case despite being mentally ill was a significant threat to the society by fraud and attempting murder. Everyone has a right to live, and those intending to take the lives of others should be punished. This case is a representation of a more significant societal problem that needs to be addressed before things get out of hand. People should be educated on the dangers of involving in crime.

If the case of Sell was not well addressed and he gets to walk scot free chances are high that it will be a great motivation to those with intentions of committing similar crimes some even worse and the entire society would turn into chaos. Sell under this condition despite him trying to avoid his hearing has to admit that his actions are severe and the more he cooperated, the easier it would be for him to receive a ruling and get to know his fate. The best recommendation for people being faced with serious crimes is that the government should make a law indicating that if they fail to comply with the orders of the judge, they could stand a chance of extending their stay in prison.

References

Heilbrun, K., & Kramer, G. M. (2012). Involuntary medication, trial competence, and clinical dilemmas: Implications of Sell v. United States for psychological practice. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 36(5), 459-466. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.36.5.459

Hsieh, M., Wu, H., Chou, F. H., & Molodynski, A. (2016). A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Attitude of Mental Healthcare Professionals towards Involuntary Treatment Orders. Psychiatric Quarterly, 88(3), 611-621. doi:10.1007/s11126-016-9479-2

Calabrese, J. D. (2015). A Book Review of "Refusing Care: Forced Treatment and the Rights of the Mentally Ill." Psychiatric Rehabilitation Skills, 6(2), 271-276. doi:10.1080/10973430208408436

Meyer, R. G., & Weaver, C.M. (2014). Law and Mental health: a case-based approach: New York, The Guilford Press.

Nnsa. (2016). Corrective Action Investigation Plan for Corrective Action Unit 127: Areas 25 and

26 Storage Tanks, Nevada Test Site, Nevada (Rev. No.: 0, August 2002). doi:10.2172/807288