Slimshandy wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2024 5:11 pm
Della wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2024 5:01 pm
Slimshandy wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2024 3:27 pm
For this case?
A mental institution for as long as it takes for his doctors to deem him no longer a threat.
You don't see that as a violation of their rights? I'm not saying I disagree, but I'm curious.
No…
He never had the right to attack children… if he’s mentally incapable of realizing his crime, he should be committed until medical professionals decide he is no longer a threat.
That’s how our justice system is supposed to work.
"Where involuntary commitment to an inpatient facility is deemed necessary, the following rights should apply:[15]
due process hearing,
provision of counsel,
minimum burden of proof of "clear and convincing" evidence,
a jury trial (at the respondent's election),
presentation of witnesses and opportunity for cross examination,
a clear standard of commitment which includes proof that:
serious physical harm to the respondent or others will occur in the absence of involuntary confinement.
the place of confinement can provide the treatment being sought by the petitioner,
there are no less restrictive but suitable alternatives to the placement being sought, and
a specific overt act of dangerousness (including a stated threat), and
the right to an appeal, including the right , if indigent, to a free transcript of the hearing and the appointment of counsel."
https://mhanational.org/issues/rights-p ... rimination.
Is this justice?