Legal Memorandum: Involuntary Commitment for Treatment

Issue: Does Wisconsin Statute 51.20 (concerning unwanted administration of a antipsychotic drugs) provide a rational means to further Wisconsin’s interest in providing care for a prisoner and to its penological interests?

In Washington v. Harper, the United States Supreme Court examined three factors in considering Washington’s prison regulation (not statute) regarding involuntary medication: (1) there must be a valid, rational connection between the prison regulation and the legitimate governmental interest put forward to satisfy it; (2) the court must consider the impact the accommodation of the asserted constitutional right will have on guards and other inmates as well as the allocation of prison resources generally; and (3) “‘the absence of ready alternatives is evidence of the reasonableness of a prison regulation, but this does not mean that prison officials ‘have to set up and then shoot down every conceivable alternative method of accommodating the claimant’s constitutional complaint.'” 494 U.S. 210, 224-25, 110 S. Ct. 1028, 1038, 108 L. Ed. 2d 178, 200 (1990) TA s "Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 221-222, 110 S. Ct. 1028, 1036-1037, 108 L. Ed. 2d 178, 198 (1990)"  (quoting Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-91, 107 S. Ct. 2254, 96 L. Ed. 2d 64 (1987) TA s "Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-91, 107 S. Ct. 2254, 96 L. Ed. 2d 64 (1987)" ).

In State v. Wood, the Wisconsin supreme court held:

To summarize, Harper,*FN1 Riggins,*FN2 and Sell*FN3 compel the following conclusions. First, a person competent to make medical decisions has a “significant” […]

margin-left:1.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph’>