NCJ Number
89113
Journal
University of Florida Law Review Volume: 35 Issue: 1 Dated: (Winter 1983) Pages: 99-129
Date Published
1983
Length
31 pages
Annotation
The three principal court decisions bearing upon the force-feeding of hunger-striking prisoners display different analytical routes that show the law's uncertainty on the issue, but the discussion raised about the individual's rights and the state's interests does facilitate the development of a methodological framework for analyzing the conflict.
Abstract
Only one decision classified the hunger striker's behavior as suicidal, thus permitting state intervention, while another court found that the prisoner's privacy rights overcame any state interest in preserving life. The third court addressed the same factors but found the inmate status tipped the balance toward state intervention. Constitutional analysis of the bodily intrusions in force-feeding were absent from all of the opinions. In developing a methodological framework from the discussion, the first task is to determine the mental competence of the hunger-striker, since a lack of mental capacity allows the state to substitute its judgment for that of the hunger-striker. Inmate status per se, however, does not make the hunger-striker incompetent, and suicide laws should be inapplicable to those hunger-strikers not manifesting mental disorder. If the facts indicate the faster's death would constitute parental abandonment of a dependent child, the state may act to prevent death under the parens patriae doctrine. If neither suicide prevention nor parens patriae is applicable, the state's ability to force-feed depends on the balance of four interests: preservation of life, prison order and security, and the rights of free speech and personhood. In balancing these interests, a court must consider that the state's interest in prison order is given great weight in the balance. A total of 285 footnotes are provided. (Author summary modified)