Quote:
Originally Posted by jayswin
Hey didn't do it purposely, though. That's what the whole ncr process was determining all these years.
|
OK, so then tell that I understand it properly now, because I have been focused on medicated versus non - incorrectly so, I think. That unmedicated = potential risk. So monitoring made sense.
However,
Unconditional release = unmedicated, potentially.
Therefore, granting unconditional release specifically implies experts are of the opinion that Li is no greater risk to society, unmedicated, than other individual might be. That the psychotic episode that resulted in that action is not reflective of the symptoms of that condition in Li specifically, but was just a horrible maelstrom of circumstances or episodes that led to that one instance. And further, I suppose, the statistics that are available back this opinion that unmedicated he poses no greater risk.
And yes, 20x greater than 'average' is significant, but not necessarily compared to other subsets of the population operating entirely free in society.
Is this more or less correct?