Vitek v. Jones

Last updated

Vitek v. Jones
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued December 5, 1979
Decided March 25, 1980
Full case nameVitek v. Jones
Docket no. 78-1155
Citations445 U.S. 480 ( more )
Argument Oral argument
Opinion announcement Opinion announcement
Case history
Prior
  • Miller v. Vitek, 437 F. Supp. 569 (Neb. 1977)
  • Vitek v. Jones 436 U.S. 407 (1978)
Holding
Prisoners have a right to notice, an adversarial hearing, and counsel before involuntary transfer to psychiatric treatment
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr.  · Potter Stewart
Byron White  · Thurgood Marshall
Harry Blackmun  · Lewis F. Powell Jr.
William Rehnquist  · John P. Stevens
Case opinions
MajorityWhite, joined by Brennan, Marshall, Powell, Stevens
ConcurrencePowell (in part)
DissentStewart, joined by Burger, Rehnquist
DissentBlackmun
Laws applied
Due Process Clause

Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480 (1980), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that state prisoners are entitled to notice, an adversarial hearing, and counsel before their involuntary transfer to state mental hospitals for treatment under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.

Contents

Background

Under Nebraska state law, the director of correctional services could transfer state prisoners to a psychiatric hospital if they determined that the prisoner suffered from a mental disorder, and the state would be incapable of proving proper treatment within its prisons. Applying this statute, Nebraska Correctional Services Director Joseph C. Vitek transferred Larry D. Jones from the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex to the Lincoln Regional Center Security Building in April 1975. [1]

In September 1977, the US District Court for the District of Nebraska enjoined the state of Nebraska from enforcing this provision. The District Court accepted Jones' argument that requiring him to remain involuntarily confined in state psychiatric treatment until his prison sentence ended would violate his Due Process Clause constitutional right to challenge his transfer. [1]

In November 1977, Jones was granted parole, releasing him from involuntary psychiatric care on the condition that he accept treatment from a Veterans' Administration hospital. In May 1978, the Supreme Court issued a per curiam decision vacating the District Court's injunction and remanding the case to assess whether Jones' conditional release made the dispute moot. Associate Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, reasoning that prisoners released on parole were still within government custody. [2]

In October 1978, the District Court reissued its injunction, finding that without it, there was a threat of Jones being involuntarily re-transferred to a psychiatric hospital. By the time the Supreme Court re-heard the case in December 1979, Jones had violated his parole conditions, leading to his reincarceration in the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex. [1]

Supreme Court ruling

Majority

In the majority opinion written by Associate Justice Byron White, the Supreme Court agreed with the District Court's determination that prisoners have a due process right to challenge the government's claim that they suffer from a mental illness that could not be treated within their prison. While Jones' conviction for robbery justified his prison sentence, the prior state proceedings did not justify subjecting him to the stigma of mental illness and duress of mandatory behavior modification. [3]

Concurrence

Part IV-B of White's opinion claimed that state governments must provide prisoners facing psychiatric hospital transfer proceedings with a licensed attorney because those with alleged mental illness are "more likely to be unable to understand or exercise [their] rights." In a concurring opinion, Associate Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. argued that the prisoner's legal assistant simply needs to be qualified and independent. Referencing the Supreme Court's 1973 verdict in Gagnon v. Scarpelli, which denied legal counsel to convicts facing revocation of their probation, Powell reasoned that because the essential facts of a psychiatric transfer hearing would be undisputed, non-lawyers would suffice. [1] [4]

Dissents

In a dissenting opinion, Associate Justice Potter Stewart contended that Jones' release from the psychiatric hospital made the case moot, claiming that if the state reattempted to involuntarily transfer Jones for treatment, then he could refile his case. [1]

Associate Justice Harry Blackmun dissented on similar grounds, determining that the case was not ripe for adjudication because the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the District Court's injunction was contingent on assuming that the Nebraska Director of Correctional Services would re-transfer Jones to a psychiatric hospital if it were lifted. [1]

Reaction

The American Journal of Law & Medicine criticized the ruling for evaluating Jones' liberty interests against involuntary psychiatric commitment in comparison to the procedural due process rights of prisoners in other proceedings, rather than in comparison to the substantive due process rights of civilians against involuntary psychiatric commitment. [3]

Related Research Articles

Involuntary commitment, civil commitment, or involuntary hospitalization/hospitalisation is a legal process through which an individual who is deemed by a qualified person to have symptoms of severe mental disorder is detained in a psychiatric hospital (inpatient) where they can be treated involuntarily. This treatment may involve the administration of psychoactive drugs, including involuntary administration. In many jurisdictions, people diagnosed with mental health disorders can also be forced to undergo treatment while in the community; this is sometimes referred to as outpatient commitment and shares legal processes with commitment.

A Due Process Clause is found in both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, which prohibit the deprivation of "life, liberty, or property" by the federal and state governments, respectively, without due process of law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Forensic psychiatry</span> Subspeciality of psychiatry, related to criminology

Forensic psychiatry is a subspeciality of psychiatry and is related to criminology. It encompasses the interface between law and psychiatry. According to the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, it is defined as "a subspecialty of psychiatry in which scientific and clinical expertise is applied in legal contexts involving civil, criminal, correctional, regulatory, or legislative matters, and in specialized clinical consultations in areas such as risk assessment or employment." A forensic psychiatrist provides services – such as determination of competency to stand trial – to a court of law to facilitate the adjudicative process and provide treatment, such as medications and psychotherapy, to criminals.

Some jurisdictions may commit certain types of dangerous sex offenders to state-run detention facilities following the completion of their sentence if that person has a "mental abnormality" or personality disorder that makes the person likely to engage in sexual offenses if not confined in a secure facility. In the United States, twenty states, the federal government, and the District of Columbia have a version of these commitment laws, which are referred to as "Sexually Violent Predator" (SVP) or "Sexually Dangerous Persons" laws.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Texas Department of Criminal Justice</span> Department of the government of Texas

The Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) is a department of the government of the U.S. state of Texas. The TDCJ is responsible for statewide criminal justice for adult offenders, including managing offenders in state prisons, state jails, and private correctional facilities, funding and certain oversight of community supervision, and supervision of offenders released from prison on parole or mandatory supervision. The TDCJ operates the largest prison system in the United States.

Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that when state law requires the state to grant parole whenever a prisoner satisfies certain conditions, due process requires the state to allow the prisoner to present evidence in support of his request for parole and to furnish a written explanation of the reasons why his request has been denied.

Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the common law rule that the insane cannot be executed; therefore the petitioner is entitled to a competency evaluation and to an evidentiary hearing in court on the question of their competency to be executed.

<i>Rennie v. Klein</i>

Rennie v. Klein, 462 F. Supp. 1131, was a case heard in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in 1978 to decide whether an involuntarily committed mental patient has a constitutional right to refuse psychiatric medication. It was the first case to establish that such a patient has the right to refuse medication in the United States.

Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case in which an incarcerated inmate sued the state of Washington over the issue of involuntary medication, specifically antipsychotic medication.

Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that determined a U.S. state violated due process by involuntarily committing a criminal defendant for an indefinite period of time solely on the basis of his permanent incompetency to stand trial on the charges filed against him.

Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court that set the standard for involuntary commitment for treatment by raising the burden of proof required to commit persons for psychiatric treatment from the usual civil burden of proof of "preponderance of the evidence" to "clear and convincing evidence".

In the United States, life imprisonment is the most severe punishment provided by law in states with no valid capital punishment statute, and second-most in those with a valid statute. According to a 2013 study, 1 of every 2 000 inhabitants of the U.S. were imprisoned for life as of 2012.

Bridgewater State Hospital, located in southeastern Massachusetts, is a state facility housing the criminally insane and those whose sanity is being evaluated for the criminal justice system. It was established in 1855 as an almshouse. It was then used as a workhouse for inmates with short sentences who worked the surrounding farmland. It was later rebuilt in the 1880s and again in 1974. As of January 6, 2020 there were 217 inmates in general population beds. The facility was the subject of the 1967 documentary Titicut Follies. Bridgewater State Hospital falls under the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts Department of Correction but its day to day operations is managed by Wellpath, a contracted vendor.

Indefinite imprisonment or indeterminate imprisonment is the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment with no definite period of time set during sentencing. It was imposed by certain nations in the past, before the drafting of the United Nations Convention against Torture (CAT). The length of an indefinite imprisonment was determined during imprisonment based on the inmate's conduct. The inmate could have been returned to society or be kept in prison for life.

Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493 (2011), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that a court-mandated population limit was necessary to remedy a violation of prisoners’ Eighth Amendment constitutional rights. Justice Kennedy filed the majority opinion of the 5 to 4 decision, affirming a decision by a three judge panel of the United States District Court for the Eastern and Northern Districts of California which had ordered California to reduce its prison population to 137.5% of design capacity within two years.

Morton Birnbaum was an American lawyer and physician who advocated for the right of psychiatric patients to have adequate, humane care, and who coined the term sanism.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia</span>

The Public Defender Service (PDS) for the District of Columbia provides legal defense to individuals on a court-appointed basis for criminal and delinquency cases indigent adult and juvenile defendants/ respondents. Its Mental Health Division provides representation to persons facing involuntary civil commitment based on allegations that the person is a danger to self or others as a result of mental illness. Its parole division represents parolees charged with violating parole and facing revocation before the United States Parole Commission. PDS also provides other legal-related services in DC.

Involuntary commitment or civil commitment is a legal process through which an individual who is deemed by a qualified agent to have symptoms of severe mental disorder is detained in a psychiatric hospital (inpatient) where they can be treated involuntarily.

People with mental illnesses are over-represented in jail and prison populations in the United States relative to the general population.

Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, is a unanimous 1982 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court concerning the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to have his discrimination complaint adjudged by Illinois's Fair Employment Practices Commission (FEPC), which had dismissed it for its own failure to meet a deadline. The decision reversed the Illinois Supreme Court's holding to the contrary two years prior.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Vitek v. Jones,445U.S.480(S.Ct.1980).
  2. Vitek v. Jones,436U.S.407(S.Ct.1978).
  3. 1 2 Gottlieb, Nancy R. (1982). "Vitek v. Jones : Transfer of Prisoners to Mental Institutions". American Journal of Law & Medicine . 8 (2): 175–207. doi:10.1017/S0098858800012739. ISSN   0098-8588.
  4. Gagnon v. Scarpelli ,411U.S.778(S.Ct.1973).