Final answer:
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Washington v. Harper that administering antipsychotic drugs to unwilling inmates is constitutional under certain conditions. This aligns with other rulings where the Court balanced inmate rights with governmental duties and societal safety.
Step-by-step explanation:
In Washington v. Harper, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of administering antipsychotic drugs to unwilling inmates. The Court ruled that this practice is not unconstitutional if certain conditions are met, such as an inmate's dangerousness to themselves or others and the medical appropriateness of the treatment. It's important to understand this ruling in the context of the Court's position on the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Over the years, the Court has navigated the tension between the Eighth Amendment and the need for prison security and inmate care.
Contrasting the Harper decision with other notable cases provides context. For example, in Baze v. Rees, the Court found the three-drug protocol for lethal injections constitutional. Similarly, the Court upheld the president's power to detain enemy combatants with less stringent evidence in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. These cases, along with the decline in the number of executions, illustrate the complexity of the Court's task: to balance constitutional rights with governmental duties and societal safety concerns.