Important is Not Important Enough: Forcibly Medicating Defendants for Sentencing Using the Important Interest Standard

Authors

Sarah Viebrock

Document Type

Note

Abstract

(Excerpt)

This Note analyzes whether the Government’s interest in sentencing is the same as its interest in trial, and whether the “important interest” standard is a high enough threshold for the Government when it seeks to forcibly medicate a defendant for sentencing. This Note will conclude that because of the procedural alternatives to forcible medication at sentencing, the functional differences between trial and sentencing, and the spirit of the Supreme Court’s decision in Sell, the Government should be required to demonstrate a compelling, rather than an important, interest when it seeks to forcibly medicate a defendant for sentencing.

Part I discusses the evolution of allowing a defendant to be forcibly medicated in order to withstand trial. Part II discusses how this concept was extended to apply in situations where the Government seeks to forcibly medicate a defendant for sentencing. Part III analyzes the arguments supporting the proposition that the Government’s interest in forcibly medicating a defendant for trial is essentially the same as its interest in sentencing. Part IV presents the arguments as to why the Government’s interest in forcibly medicating a defendant for sentencing is different than its interest in forcibly medicating a defendant for trial. Finally, Part V discusses why these differences call for a heightened standard when the Government seeks to forcibly medicate a defendant for sentencing as opposed to trial, and the practical effect of that heightened standard.