THE DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL CHARGES AFTER INVOLUNTARY MEDICATION TO RESTORE COMPETENCE TO STAND TRIAL

The United States Supreme Court, in the recent case of Riggins v. Neva da, extended its examination of the issue of involuntary treatment wit h anti-psychotic medication to the mentally disabled facing criminal t rial. Although this was an extreme case where the defendant faced a po ssible death sentence, the involuntary administration of anti-psychoti c medication to restore 'competency to stand trial' always raises uniq ue medical and moral questions. This highly controversial issue has re ceived little empirical investigation. We report here on the first stu dy to follow-up on the disposition of the criminal charges of persons committed to a hospital for the restoration of 'competency to stand tr ial' who refused anti-psychotic medication and for whom involuntary tr eatment was sought. We have previously reported on the characteristics of these cases (N=68) and aspects of their outcome in the hospital. T his cohort of patients represents virtually all indicted felony offend ers in New York state who were incompetent to stand trial and for whom involuntary treatment with anti-psychotic medication was requested be tween 1986 and 1990. The present retrospective report focuses on the d isposition of the criminal charges for such cases, in a state that doe s not have a death penalty. Tentative inferences are considered based on the findings that persons who were involuntarily restored to 'compe tency to stand trial' had a variety of dispositions of their criminal charges, including plea negotiations that resulted in foreshortened in carceration and several cases of insanity acquittals. Suggestions for further and more conclusive studies are proposed.