In 1992 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the State of Nevada had improperly forced a mentally ill pretrial detainee to take psychotropic drugs. One legal expert hailed the decision as a victory for mentally ill criminal defendants; however, the U.S. Supreme Court linked this decision to a 1990 Court decision that permitted the State of Washington to treat a mentally ill inmate involuntarily. This essay explains and criticizes these decisions and the convergence of the right of mentally ill inmates and pretrial detainees to resist psychotropic treatment. Additionally, this essay offers alternatives for prison and jail administrators and a different legal standard for deciding the issue of involuntarily medicating severely mentally ill prisoners and pretrial detainees. This essay argues that the U.S. Supreme Court was wrong to have overruled Harper v. Washington (1988) and the strict scrutiny standard that the Washington Supreme Court used. Strict scrutiny, which requires the State to demonstrate a compelling State interest and a remedy narrowly tailored to advance this interest, was used in Washington State to determine whether a person should be given ECT. The Washington Supreme Court believed that it should be used in the involuntary medication of inmates because of the potency and toxicity of some psychotropic drugs. Prisoners need this type of protection from the State because of the State's history of either using drugs for inmates who are not mentally ill or overprescribing drugs to help manage troublesome inmates. 42 references