Norko Michael A, Cotterell Mark S, Hollis Tamika
Dr. Norko is Professor, Department of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and Director of Forensic Services for the Connecticut Department of Mental Health and Addiction, Services, Hartford, Connecticut. Dr. Cotterell is Instructor in Psychiatry, Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College and Medical Director of the Forensic Program, New Hampshire Hospital, Concord, New Hampshire. Ms. Hollis is a Research Associate, Department of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2020 Dec;48(4):473-483. doi: 10.29158/JAAPL.200005-20. Epub 2020 Jul 16.
Since 2004, Connecticut has had two different mechanisms for involuntary medication of defendants hospitalized for restoration of competence to stand trial. In this article, we first describe the development of these two mechanisms and compare their procedural elements. The first procedure required a hearing in criminal court, in a process parallel to the subsequent U.S. Supreme Court holding in ; the later procedure uses a civil mechanism in probate court and was enacted in response to the in regarding the preferential use of alternate mechanisms for involuntary medication orders. To compare the effectiveness and efficiency of the two mechanisms, we examined 1,455 admissions to the state's secure forensic hospital for competency restoration for the calendar years 2005 through 2011. Petitions for involuntary medication of defendants were filed in five cases in criminal court (0.3%) and in 177 cases (12.2%) in probate court. The probate mechanism resulted in a significantly shorter duration of the resolution of the competence matter. Both mechanisms were effective at restoring defendants' competency (i.e., two thirds were restored by the criminal court process, and nearly 74% were restored in the civil process).
自2004年以来，康涅狄格州针对因恢复受审能力而住院的被告的非自愿用药有两种不同机制。在本文中，我们首先描述这两种机制的发展情况，并比较它们的程序要素。第一种程序要求在刑事法庭进行听证，这一过程与美国最高法院后来在……的裁决类似；后来的程序在遗嘱检验法庭采用民事机制，是为回应……中关于非自愿用药令优先使用替代机制的规定而制定的。为比较这两种机制的有效性和效率，我们研究了2005年至2011年期间该州安全法医医院为恢复能力而收治的1455名患者。刑事法庭有5起（0.3%）案件提交了被告非自愿用药申请，遗嘱检验法庭有177起（12.2%）案件提交了申请。遗嘱检验机制使能力问题的解决时间显著缩短。两种机制在恢复被告能力方面都很有效（即三分之二通过刑事法庭程序恢复，近74%通过民事程序恢复）。
