Forcible Medication of Defendants: Permissible and Necessary

In State v. Wang, 323 Conn. 115 (2016), the Supreme Court of Connecticut recently ruled that forcible medication of defendant Dr. Lishan Wang would not violate his rights and ordered that he be forcibly medicated in order to stand trial for the murder of Dr. Vajinder Toor. The issue of forced medication in the context of criminal trials has been explored extensively by the U.S. Supreme Court and the justices of the Connecticut Supreme Court noted that “in some circumstances, forced medication to render a defendant competent to stand trial for a crime that [that person] is charged with committing may be constitutionally permissible, even though the circumstances in which it is appropriate may be rare.” This is an important point to recognize, because it highlights the intersection of personal liberty and the power of the state to achieve justice. Forced medication of criminal defendants should be used when it is constitutionally appropriate to ensure that crimes are prosecuted so that the state, the victims and their families receive the justice they seek.

The standard for reviewing whether a defendant should be forcibly medicated in order to ensure his or her competence involves the application of the four-part test rendered in Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166, 180-81 (2003). This test involves not only the determination of the government’s interest but also an analysis of the effect of the forcible medication on the defendant. In the first part of the test, the state must show that important governmental interests are at stake. In the second part, the state must show that involuntary medication will significantly further the state’s interest. In the third part, the state must show that any alternate, less intrusive treatments will be unlikely to achieve substantially the same result. And in the fourth part, the state must show that the administration of the selected medication is medically appropriate or that “it is in the defendant’s best medical interest in light of his medical condition.” United States v. Evans, 404 F.3d 227, 235 (4th Cir. 2005) (following Sell, supra).