{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018027571580063628, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006362672322375398, 'mean_word_length': 4.863354037267081, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
At law. One flew over the Supreme Court.


 In February 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court found for Washington State in deciding Washington v. Harper, a case involving the medication by antipsychotic drugs of a mentally ill prisoner against his will. Annas reviews the 6-to-3 decision in which a majority of the Court concluded that a prisoner's right to avoid the unwanted administration of antipsychotic drugs must yield to the state's interest in treatment and in maintaining prison order. Three Justices joined in the dissenting opinion which argued that the majority significantly undervalued prisoner Harper's liberty interest. Annas is critical of the decision which he sees as depriving competent mentally ill prisoners of their legal rights solely for prison management. He also questions the role of psychiatrists as agents of the state in situations where medication is forced on unwilling patients without judicial review or oversight.
