20. In Sell v. U.S. (2003)the U.S. Supreme Court held that, as with all involuntary commitment treatment standards, A a defendant must be a danger to him or herself B treatment can only be administered involuntarily if the defendant is facing a serious charge C treatment can be forced if it is substantially unlikely to have side effects that could undermine the fairness of the trial D treatment is to be via the least restrictive alternative available to further important governmental interests E All of the above

Question

20. In Sell v. U.S. (2003)the U.S. Supreme Court held that, as with all involuntary commitment treatment standards, A a defendant must be a danger to him or herself B treatment can only be administered involuntarily if the defendant is facing a serious charge C treatment can be forced if it is substantially unlikely to have side effects that could undermine the fairness of the trial D treatment is to be via the least restrictive alternative available to further important governmental interests E All of the above

Answer 1

In Sell v. U.S. (2003), the U.S. Supreme Court established specific criteria under which the government can involuntarily administer antipsychotic medication to a mentally ill defendant in order to render them competent to stand trial. The Court held that such treatment is permissible only if:1. Important governmental interests are at stake.2. Involuntary medication will significantly further those interests.3. The medication is necessary to further those interests, meaning that less intrusive treatments are unlikely to achieve the same results.4. The administration of the drugs is medically appropriate.Based on these criteria, the correct answer is:D. Treatment is to be via the least restrictive alternative available to further important governmental interests.This option aligns with the Court's emphasis on using the least intrusive means necessary to achieve the government's objectives while respecting the defendant's rights.

Soru

Çözüm

Cevap