I think there has to be a widely accepted scientific theory to back it up. You can't just have a psychiatrist guessing that "maybe" it would help. However, I'm no crim law expert so don't I don't know for sure. I just recall this as a discussion in my crim law class, so I don't really have a source to point you towards. I'm going to look and see if I can find any cases on the subject and I'll get back to you.
Ok, here's a snippit from one...
This is from Tally v. Ortiz (US dist Co 2006)
In May, 1996, the state filed a motion with the trial court seeking authority to involuntarily medicate Tally with antipsychotic drugs. At a hearing on this motion, Dr. Johnson testified that since Tally's arrival at CMHI in February, 1996, Tally had been delusional and had become violent and extremely dangerous to others at CMHI. Dr. Johnson reported that Tally had been medicated on an emergency basis for eight days, and that Tally had become less dangerous while on medication. Dr. Johnson proposed continuing medication with approximately 200 mg of Haldol injected every few weeks. Vol. V, pp. 59 -- 60. On May 20, 2006, the trial court authorized this treatment plan, and approved the involuntary administration of Haldol. Vol. I, p. 279 -- 280.
In late August, 1996, Dr. Johnson reported that Tally had been restored to competence, and would remain competent [*4] as long as he continued to take Haldol. After a hearing, the trial court found that Tally had been restored to competency, and ordered that Tally continue to take Haldol, including involuntary administration, if necessary. Vol. VI, pp. 43 -- 48. The court later issued a written order. Vol. II, pp. 287 -- 288. On October 10, 1996, Tally moved to rescind the trial court's order authorizing involuntary medication. Vol. II, p. 320 -- 321. At a hearing on that motion and other motions, the court denied Tally's motion to rescind the involuntary medication order. Vol. VII, 47 -- 53.
And here are the Fl rules of crim procedure related to involuntary treatment:
RULE 3.211. COMPETENCE TO PROCEED: SCOPE OF EXAMINATION AND REPORT
(1) In determining considering the issues of involuntary hospitalization relating to treatment, the examining experts shall consider and include in their report an analysis of on the following factors:
(i) The nature and extent of the mental illness or mental retardation causing the incompetence suffered by the defendant ;
(ii) The treatment or treatments appropriate for the mental illness or mental retardation of the defendant, and an explanation of each of the possible treatment alternatives in order of choices;
(iii) The availability of acceptable treatment. If treatment is available in the community, the expert shall so state in the report;
(iv) The likelihood of the defendant attaining competence under the treatment recommended, an assessment of the probable duration of the treatment required to restore competence, and the probability that the defendant will attain competence to proceed in the foreseeable future.
(ii) Whether the defendant, because of such mental illness or mental retardation, meets the criteria for involuntary hospitalization or placement set forth by law;
(iii) Whether there is a substantial probability that the defendant will attain competence to stand trial within the foreseeable future;
(iv) The nature of the care and treatment to be afforded the defendant and its probable duration;
(v) Alternatives other than involuntary hospitalization which might be less restrictive on the defendant's liberty.
