Subpart 3.5 - Hunger Strikes

A. Party Begins a Hunger Strike

Many members of the Anti-Government movement view themselves as being at war against a hostile, occupational government. These people refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the law enforcement officers who arrest them, the courts and judges that decide their fate, and the institutions in which they are incarcerated not only after a conviction, but also before and during trial. Where such a member of the movement is held in prison, he considers himself to be a prisoner of war.

In an attempt to gain public sympathy and support (in addition to the desire some of the more extreme groups have to achieve martyrdom), it is not unheard of for incarcerated members of the movement to refuse food and water, to engage in a "hunger strike." Because of the dangers this poses, the state courts are placed in a precarious situation - to force feed the party clearly implicates any of a number of constitutional and civil rights, but to allow them to go without food and water not only threatens their health and welfare, it also attracts unnecessary and unwanted attention to them and their cause.

B. Responding to a Hunger Strike

1. Safeguarding the Party's Well Being - Without a doubt, the courts' response must be to safeguard the party's well being above all. This may even extend so far as to force feed an individual.[6] However, any response must be given serious consideration by the court and the executive branch, due to the likelihood of litigation to arise over the choice the government makes.[7] As with the general tone of this guide, the authors again suggest that the court first take all reasonable steps to accommodate the individual before this becomes an issue.

2. Minimize Negative Publicity - As suggested above, martyrdom is a goal of many of the more extremist groups the courts will encounter. As a result, courts should consider this issue before it occurs and have contingencies in place - including establishing a spokesperson for the court, policies governing the use of force feeding, and the like. In order to both deter this particular activity in the future as well as to minimize the ability of the movements to propagandize these occurrences, the court should be prepared to act as reasonably but firmly as possible.

---

[6] Force feeding a civil contemnor has been held to not violate the contemnor's constitutional rights in several federal courts. See, e.g. In Re Sanchez, 577 F.Supp. 7 (S.D.N.Y. 1983) (holding that, given that the purpose of the strike was to coerce the court, and that the contemnor's strong objection was already expressed by fact of the hunger strike, his constitutional rights were not violated by government force feeding).

[7] It is also advisable for the court or the executive to arrive at a medical determination that the individual's health is in jeopardy before taking this step. See Martinez v. Turner, 977 F.2d 421 (8' Cir. 1992) (holding that individual failed to state a constitutional claim where evidence showed that authorities had arrived at a medical decision that force feeding was necessary to the individual's health).