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.
|
No. My argument is one of, why are we so bloody eager to let this guy go unsupervised?
WE ALREADY keep mentally ill people under constant supervision. This guy killed somebody. Regardless of the insanity plea, he took a knife and killed him. Now, I understand that the insanity plea means he wasn't deemed responsible but just because he is deemed to be better now while on medications, his history, in my opinion, should lead us to be more cautious then with others. This isn't a pre-emptive arrest, this is keeping someone WHO CUT SOMEONES ####ING HEAD OFF under extra careful watch instead of giving him the opportunity to run away after only a few years of good results (he was only arrested 7 years ago. Who knows how long he has appeared to be better).