Forced medication

Recently, attorneys have been debating the appropriateness of forcibly medicating Wandar Barzee, one of the two kidnappers of Elizabeth Smart. Yeah, the girl’s been home for two years, and they still can’t figure out a way to try her abductors.

Recently, attorneys have been debating the appropriateness of forcibly medicating Wandar Barzee, one of the two kidnappers of Elizabeth Smart. Yeah, the girl’s been home for two years, and they still can’t figure out a way to try her abductors.

Here’s the question: Wanda Barzee, it has been determined, could be found competent to stand trial if she took her antipsychotic medication. She, however, insists she’s not crazy and refuses medication because she believes it’s a plan of Satan.

Should she be forced to take the medication and stand trial for her part in Smart’s abduction and captivity? Keep in mind, the sentence for kidnapping is generally much less than life in prison.

Or should the government not force her to take the medication, and effectively imprison the 59-year-old woman for the rest of her life in a mental asylum because she’s unfit for trial?

Background links to help you understand the whole sordid mess:

11 thoughts on “Forced medication”

  1. Can of Worms

    Wow Matt, that’s a heavy question for a Thursday morning.

    The question, I suppose, is not whether she takes her medication during the trial, but rather whether she was taking her medication when she kidnapped Elizabeth Smart. She could be competent at the trial and still found to have been mentally incompetent at the time of the crime.

    In general, however, I’m all in favor of forced medication, if the person in question is a hazard to society without medication. The question becomes murkier when you force a woman to take medication in order to put her in jail.

    Now here’s an even weirder question: if a person is on anti-psychotic medication, and knows he can be a hazard to society if he doesn’t take his medication, and he goes off his medication and commits a crime, could he be tried for criminal negligence for purposely neglecting to take his medication? *head spins*

    — Ben

    1. how about this

      How about this for an idea…

      If someone comits a crime, regardless of mental state or capacity, we lock them up for it.

      I know. I’m a heartless Republican.

      ——– Visit my blog, eh! The Murphy Maphia

      1. The problem

        The problem with this case is that she’s been judged as incompetent to stand trial. What this means is that, legally, she’s incapable of defending herself.

        You could make a similar case for trying and incarcerating a person who’s in a persistent vegetative state. Because they are incapable of defending themselves, how do you try them to determine if they committed the crime or not?

        —
        Matthew P. Barnson

  2. Those are messy worms!

    Sounds like the woman was never on medication in the first place. If she truly is psychotic, put her in an insane asylum and leave her their with a court order that should she ever leave, she’ll have to take medication to stand trial. I’m sure our tax dollars could provide a great life for her to live in the asylum. In the meantime, we don’t have to worry about her pulling a repeat offense on some other unsuspecting child.

    — Christy

    1. Exactly what’s happening

      Sounds like this is exactly the way things work right now 🙂

      —
      Matthew P. Barnson

  3. A Clockwork Orange

    If Wanda is coherent enough to know that they want to give her medication and yet she feels that she doesn’t need it to stand trial, then I’m with Wanda. If she’s too disruptive in the courtroom, then they can let her spend some time chilling out in an institution until she either decides to cooperate or she agrees to the medication. There’s no real rush, right?

    I think it is a moral wrong to force persons to take drugs against their will. The only exception to this might be if that person in an unmedicated state is an immediate threat to others. I don’t think that Wanda – being a 59 year old woman in chains – qualifies.

    My own (somewhat cynical) opinion is that the real reason they’re pushing medication is not for Wanda’s benefit – but for the convenience of the courts. I think that Wanda and Brian David Mitchell are quite an embarassment because of their religious extremism and history of singing hymns and so forth in the courtroom.

    The courts would much prefer them in a sedated state because it’s easier for them – not because it improves their chances of a fair trial. The courts want them to be “clockwork oranges” within the system.

    I’m not sympathetic to Smart’s abductors, but I also think that the courts want to avoid the embarassing circus that would ensue when Wanda and Brian get up and proclaim that the main body of the Mormon Church has abandoned the ways of God and that the prophet Brian David Mitchel had been “instructed” to marry 14 year old Elizabeth Smart in a righteous polygamous union – yea verily – even as was the prophet Joseph Smith, Jr. “instructed” to take 14 year old Fanny Alger or 14 yeard old Helen Mar Kimball as brides.

    And so on.

    The local Mormon Church authoritites would probably not much appreciate the national news scrutiny into their polygamous history this sort of thing would stir up.

    Better to dope up Brian and Wanda before they get in that courtroom and say anything so salacious.

    1. Fanny

      Actually, Fanny Alger was 16 when Joseph took her as his first plural wife when she was a houseguest with him and Emma. Helen Marr Kimball was the only 14-year-old, if I recall correctly…

      —
      Matthew P. Barnson

Comments are closed.