Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
What likelihood of recidivism is not a significant threat to you.
You keep bringing up other criminals being a more significant threat. That is not the standard set out by the law for letting people out of prison. It is the standard set out by law here. So what criminals do is absolutely not relavent to this case.
The statistics show somewhere between a 1/100 and 1/1000 chance of him killing again.
I think most people would agree that if he stops taking his meds he is a threat to society. If he takes his meds he isn't. So without assurance that he will take his meds he is a threat.
It's like trusting a random person in a bar that they took their birth control that morning and will the next morning. People taking medicine in general is unreliable. And unless the experts are saying a psychotic episode is highly unlikely even if he goes of his meds which I have heard no one do, then the risk of him going off his meds even accidently is significant.
The experts got the balance between risk and freedom wrong in this case. They are looking at him as an individual rather than as a statistic. And when evaluating threats it should be statiscal probabilities that govern.
|
If statistical probability was the only factor considered by his doctors, then why would they have a hearing at all to determine if he safe to release? They would just know that he's available for release without any sort of discussion because he meets the statistical criteria.
It's absurd to say to each case shouldn't be judged on a case-by-case basis. But it is fair to say that the statistical probabilities should play a part, I'm not sure how big, in the decision to release him. And the analysis in judging what the chances are for regression of other people who had similar diagnosis.