 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Contents this page were published in the May/June, 1998 edition of the Washington Free Press.
WFP, 1463 E. Republican #178, Seattle, WA -USA, 98112. -- WAfreepress@gmail.com
Copyright © 1998 WFP Collective, Inc.
Mary Kay LeTourneau, 35, a Seattle school teacher who had sex with a 13-year old boy and subsequently gave birth to his child, was caught violating her probation. She was caught being in a parked car with the boy, and is now serving a 7-1/2 year prison sentence.
Most observers of this case agree LeTourneau is emotionally sick. It is the hope of her attorney, David Gehrke, that she will have the opportunity of receiving treatment while being confined.
Not only will she have that chance - she might have nothing to say about it.
In Washington v. Harper, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that psychiatric drugs could be forced onto unwilling prisoners. The ruling became law in 1990 and went unnoticed, as issues of the day were highlighted by incidents of flag burning, and the war against Iraq. Incredibly, few people have ever heard of Washington v. Harper, much less explain its significance and importance.
The Harper ruling directly contradicts and overturns previous rulings in Vitek v. Jones (1980). There, the court held that involuntary subjection of prisoners to psychiatric treatment constitutes a deprivation of liberty, and thus requires due process of law.
Walter Harper, an inmate in the Washington State prison system, was sent to the state's Special Offender Center on several occasions. Although Harper was convicted of armed robbery, and had never been adjudged insane or mentally incompetent, he was forced to take a series of anti-psychotic drugs - often called 'psychotropic' or 'neuroleptic'. These included Trialofon, Haldol, Prolixin, Tarcatan, Loxitane and Navane. The purpose of these drugs is to alter the brain's chemical balance. Justice Kennedy, writer of the opinion in Harper, conceded that while the therapeutic benefits of psychotropic drugs are "well documented," it is also true that "... the drugs can have serious, even fatal side effects."
Justice Blackmun dissented, writing that mentally ill prisoners should be committed to mental institutions, thereby removing them from the prison environment.
Justice Stevens was more pronounced and passionate in his dissent. "The court has undervalued respondent's liberty interest... and has concluded that a mock trial before an institutionally biased tribunal constitutes "due process." Every violation of a person's bodily integrity is an invasion of his or her liberty. The invasion is particularly intrusive if it creates substantial risk of permanent injury, or premature death."
The danger inherent in Harper is that the decision of the court has spread far beyond prison walls. In Riggins v. State, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled 4-1 that it is lawful to forcibly drug pre-trial detainees and defendants during trial. The lone dissenter, Justice Charles Springer, observed, "The right to be present at one's trial necessarily means the right to be present as one really is."
In 1994, the U.S. Senate's Committee on Veteran's Affairs found that the Department of Defense conducted a program of forcing Desert Storm troops to take experimental drugs under threat of court martial. The Senate report, made available under the Freedom of Information Act, details the physical illnesses sustained by returning troops, and infections received by their spouses as well as a result of contact with them.
There is little doubt that Mary Kay LeTourneau will receive some sort of treatment. I also believe that she will most likely voluntarily submit herself to the treatment. She may eventually be sent to Washington's Special Offender Unit. While she is obviously not a violent person, she does qualify as a "special offender," due to the nature of her crime.
|
|
|
|
|