Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
.
As for the rest of yours and polak's arguments regarding public safety, unforgivable acts, etc., I'd ask you to consider the logistics of what you're suggesting. This isn't meant to be a slippery-slope argument, but logistically, if your argument is one of public safety, shouldn't we be putting all schizophrenics who ever have murderous hallucinations away? I mean that way we can be sure that they won't harm the general population. Like you said, there's zero guarantee these people won't stop taking their meds and just go out and commit atrocities. Why wait until they step over those uncrossable lines where someone actually gets hurt in the first place? Hell, we should probably extend that to anyone who ever has violent thoughts in the first place, regardless of mental illness. Look at the number of people without mental illness that commit violence. Clearly we can't guarantee that they'll never act on those thoughts.
|
I appreciate and respect your opinions on a lot of these topics. As far as the slippery slope statement, I believe there is a big difference between having the urges, and actually acting on them. I am sure many people have murderous thoughts for whatever reason or mental disorder, and never act on them, live a full life, then die, and nobody is hurt. You cannot persecute someone for thought crimes, that I agree.
Li's manifestation of Schizophrenia however, has proven to be lethal. And IMO, that is point where I would draw the line, and argue for lifetime institutionalization.