Quote:
Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen
...
Actions that he had no control over and has been treated for.
....
So what are the reasons to keep him locked up?
...
Every year he has faced the review board. Often times he has increased his freedoms. He started with supervised walks on the hospital ground to escorted trips to the communities. He was in a group home before being released on his own with conditions that included monitoring. Now he is seeking to remove those conditions. Of course you knew all that already  |
It's the way you argue, friend, that grinds.
Again, I never suggested he should be locked up. And it is disingenuous for you to talk of him being locked up. Of course you know already he has been released on his own. With conditions.
Referring to his illness (if that's the right word - don't want to label incorrectly) as a condition that he
has been treated for seems to me implies a cure, and we know a cure isn't possible. His medication is part of necessary ongoing treatment, I assume. While I am completely confident that his condition can be controlled with medication - allowing him to be an autonomous, fully functional member of society (like he is now), were he to no longer take that medication, I am not sure experts can confidently predict what might happen.
We know what his condition, untreated, resulted in previously. Any threat he may pose in the future would only be potentially in absence of his medication - therefore continuing to monitor compliance seems prudent to me. I am not certain that monitoring is an undue restriction on his liberty, given the circumstances. Which may be completely wrong.