A Criminally Insane Man Goes to The Fair....

[Papayania]

Criminally insane killer disappears from fair

The man they think might have been Paul was last seen walking westbound from the Sprague/ Trent corridor. Authorities think Paul, who has no money, may be attempting to hitchhike home to Sunnyside in the Yakima Valley where his parents live.

"His sister tells us he calls his parents in Sunnyside virtually every day and that if he's escaped he's headed home," Spokane County Sheriff Sergeant Dave Reagan said.

Seems like all this could have been avoided if they just held the fair at Paul's parent's house.

That would be very difficult, saying that sunnyside would not be the place to hold a spokane fair

Outsourcing solves everything.

[Sitspot]

And, as that wasn't anything like an answer, again I ask what has actually happened to anyone at the state fair to justify the directors fears?

The same fears that you get if you decided to take a truck loaded with ANFO explosives into a fuel refinery and had a history of arson. You might not actually detonate it, but no one in their right mind is going to let you in.

It doesn't have to happen in the state fair. The person has already killed someone out of mental instability. This person is not cured, if that is at all possible. He is an ACTIVE risk. That he escaped while on the grounds only increases the risk.

So your answer is that nothing actually happened to justify his fears - fine

Now as for your ANFO analogy, if your position is that no person found to be insane should be allowed out ever again, thats fine and dandy. Feel free to argue it and even vote for it - but it is not the current default position in this country. It is currently believed by the powers that be, that people are capable of being cured or learning to cope with mental illness.
Paul was never found guilty of any crime, he was found to be mentally ill more than 20 years ago. Since that time, doctors and judges who are much more familiar with his case than any of us, have decided he is fit to mix unsupervised in normal society and he has been doing so. Unless there was a major change in his mental condition recently they had probably no reason to change their minds, so any thoughts that the state fair was entitled to more notice or a greater entitlement to refuse him entry than anywhere else that he was legally entitled to go is simply complete BS.
As I say if you think all people in his situation should be 'locked in a cell' forever, you are entitled to your opinion, but it currently has no legal or medical validity.

[Non Aligned States]

Being confined to a cell rather limits the options for rehabilitation, don't you think?

You will have to prove that being confined to a cell, or if we're going to be proper about this, a mental facility, prohibits rehabilitation of mentally unstable people, especially the violently unstable ones.

For anyone who is ever going to be released, there has to be some graduality to it. I'm sure you don't disagree when the onus of guilt is the other way: you support the idea of parole conditions I expect, whereby a released felon is subject to restrictions not placed on free citizens?

But move that gradual reintegration into society to the other side of the magic line (their release, fully rehabilitated) and you're against it. Quite your usual "tough on crime" bias.

I don't quite see the validity of parole, or for that matter, mental illness granting partial reprieve from consequences of criminal actions. Proof of crime, proof of guilt, that is all that is required. Age, mental condition, extenuating circumstances, no excuses. I am also in favor of a forced labor program for proven guilt until the debt incurred to society is repaid.

[Non Aligned States]

So your answer is that nothing actually happened to justify his fears - fine

You can't read can you? Or rather, you're trying not to. He killed someone while listening to voices in his head. There is no evidence to suggest that he is rehabilitated. He is an active risk and can kill again. You do not let rabid dogs wherever they please until they bite someone again. You keep them out and you put them down.

Now as for your ANFO analogy,

Which you avoided.

Paul was never found guilty of any crime,

Blatant lie. He was found guilty of murder but was considered mentally insane at the time.

As I say if you think all people in his situation should be 'locked in a cell' forever

Another blatant lie on your part. I never specified that they should be locked away forever. You are manufacturing things out of thin air.

[Niur]

So your answer is that nothing actually happened to justify his fears - fine

You can't read can you? Or rather, you're trying not to. He killed someone while listening to voices in his head. There is no evidence to suggest that he is rehabilitated. He is an active risk and can kill again. You do not let rabid dogs wherever they please until they bite someone again. You keep them out and you put them down.

Now as for your ANFO analogy,

Which you avoided.

Paul was never found guilty of any crime,

Blatant lie. He was found guilty of murder but was considered mentally insane at the time.

As I say if you think all people in his situation should be 'locked in a cell' forever

Another blatant lie on your part. I never specified that they should be locked away forever. You are manufacturing things out of thin air.

in washington law, at least in this case, he was accused, but was deemed not fit for trial, and therefore was never convicted.

[Non Aligned States]

in washington law, at least in this case, he was accused, but was deemed not fit for trial, and therefore was never convicted.

So explain to me who exactly was considered the culprit in the murder case then hmm?

[Niur]

in washington law, at least in this case, he was accused, but was deemed not fit for trial, and therefore was never convicted.

So explain to me who exactly was considered the culprit in the murder case then hmm?

he still the culprit, just not the convict...Its confusing I know, and he probably would have been charged had he been suited for court.

[Non Aligned States]

he still the culprit, just not the convict...Its confusing I know, and he probably would have been charged had he been suited for court.

In short, he is guilty. He just cannot be legally charged for it. Semantic difference, and makes him no less dangerous.

[Sitspot]

To NAS

Phillip Paul murdered Ruth Mottley, a 78-year-old woman, back in 1987. At the time he had been hearing voices that were telling him he should kill her, and he did exactly that. After he murdered Mottley, he buried her outside of her own home. This led to a trial when he was captured, where he was found not guilty by reason of insanity,

So no blatant lie there except from you.

On the case of not being able to read, several references have been provided to show that Paul had been considered to be rehabilitated enough to do things on his own and live out of hospital. I'm not going to accuse you of not being able to read, but you are obviously very selective in what you do read .
So not much point in trying to discuss things with you and I'm hitting ignore - have fun

[Niur]

To NAS

Phillip Paul murdered Ruth Mottley, a 78-year-old woman, back in 1987. At the time he had been hearing voices that were telling him he should kill her, and he did exactly that. After he murdered Mottley, he buried her outside of her own home. This led to a trial when he was captured, where he was found not guilty by reason of insanity,

So no blatant lie there except from you.

On the case of not being able to read, several references have been provided to show that Paul had been considered to be rehabilitated enough to do things on his own and live out of hospital. I'm not going to accuse you of not being able to read, but you are obviously very selective in what you do read .
So not much point in trying to discuss things with you and I'm hitting ignore - have fun

did I mention he marinated her body in gasoline, that way the dogs couldnt smell it.

[Niicha]

To NAS

Phillip Paul murdered Ruth Mottley, a 78-year-old woman, back in 1987. At the time he had been hearing voices that were telling him he should kill her, and he did exactly that. After he murdered Mottley, he buried her outside of her own home. This led to a trial when he was captured, where he was found not guilty by reason of insanity,

So no blatant lie there except from you.

On the case of not being able to read, several references have been provided to show that Paul had been considered to be rehabilitated enough to do things on his own and live out of hospital. I'm not going to accuse you of not being able to read, but you are obviously very selective in what you do read .
So not much point in trying to discuss things with you and I'm hitting ignore - have fun

did I mention he marinated her body in gasoline, that way the dogs couldnt smell it.

That seems pretty "pre-meditated" and "1st degree-y" in my book... He must have had a good lawyer.

[North Suran]

On hindsight, are you sure this isn't just a viral campaign to a promote a sequel to Batman: Arkham Asylum?

[Lucky Bicycle Works]

Being confined to a cell rather limits the options for rehabilitation, don't you think?

You will have to prove that being confined to a cell, or if we're going to be proper about this, a mental facility, prohibits rehabilitation of mentally unstable people, especially the violently unstable ones.

I don't think I have to prove that. It follows from the meaning of "rehabilitation" and "release."

To function effectively outside the jail or hospital, an inmate needs exposure to that society they are going to function IN. A jail or mental hospital is in some sense a "society" but the way a prisoner interacts with other prisoners is NOT going to train them in effective ways of interacting with other free persons after release.

That goes double for a mental hospital, where the people the patient interacts with are clearly divided into two classes: patients and staff. Even if the staff are very good, there is no equivalent class of people who are going to be there for the patient after release. There will be outpatient services, perhaps community supervision, but the world outside is not structured specifically for the patient. A boss is not the same as an occupational therapist, a partner is not the same as the nurse who gives them a hug, neighbours and community are not the same as the patients and staff inside.

And my jibe about The Truman Show wasn't entirely frivolous. Truman goes kind of nuts when he starts to suspect that his whole world is a movie set. A hospital or a jail can't simulate freedom anywhere near that well, and pretending that the simulation they can make for the patient to practice their life skills in will never be accurate enough that you can be sure the patient will react to outside society in the safe way they are reacting when released as "fully rehabilitated."

Even if the rehabilitation includes training in approriate social behaviours, the role of a paid professional will never accurately mimic all of the options for social interaction which the patient will have after release. At some point, you have to let them run on the leash and explore the possibilities. Chucking them in the deep end of freedom, with only some lessons they learnt in therapy, isn't the way to go.

The use of day-release or a recreational outing with supervision, as a reward for good behaviour inside, presents freedom as a valuable thing, something to strive for and to do right. The experience can be brought back inside, and difficulties worked through with the therapist. It's like the difference between reading a book about ski-ing, or trying to ski. The instruction is much more useful and effective if mixed with even a little real experience. The convict or patient plainly didn't do freedom right the first time, and around the time of release they need practice at their supposedly rehabilitated way of coping with life.

I do wonder if there would be such a fuss if Paul had absconded from a day-release job, instead of a recreational outing. People react against a killer having any fun ... would they react so strongly if instead he'd been out of the hospital to work a job for pay?

Well, let me ask you that directly. Would you be more tolerant of Paul being released with supervision, if the life experience he was supposedly getting was a real job instead of a visit to the fair?

As I suggest below, they can be given some experience of a "realityish" environment within the hospital (perhaps there is a workshop where they can practice a trade, visiting days when they can interact with people who are neither inmates nor staff, and recreations like watching TV which they will also have after release.) Certainly some rehabilitation can happen within the hospital or jail.

All those things are good, and along with therapy, possibly drugs, and possibly simple aging-out (which I presume works on violently insane people much as it works on plain-out violent offenders, age mellows most people) allow for partial rehabilitation while still in custody.

But you never really know if they're going to reoffend until you take a risk and let them have their freedom. It's a question of what is an acceptable level of risk, to justify the reward of having one less 'prisoner' and one more functioning member of society.

In the case of a prisoner, that's decided by the parole board. In the case of a patient, it's a medical decision. I think that's an important distinction when we're talking about the "right to know" of the fair operators.

For anyone who is ever going to be released, there has to be some graduality to it. I'm sure you don't disagree when the onus of guilt is the other way: you support the idea of parole conditions I expect, whereby a released felon is subject to restrictions not placed on free citizens?

But move that gradual reintegration into society to the other side of the magic line (their release, fully rehabilitated) and you're against it. Quite your usual "tough on crime" bias.

I don't quite see the validity of parole, or for that matter, mental illness granting partial reprieve from consequences of criminal actions. Proof of crime, proof of guilt, that is all that is required. Age, mental condition, extenuating circumstances, no excuses. I am also in favor of a forced labor program for proven guilt until the debt incurred to society is repaid.

Good for you. You don't believe in parole, which is the supervision of released ex-cons and the restriction on them doing certain things (like moving interstate without telling anyone, or associating with certain people) which would be first step towards re-offending if they were going to. You prefer giving them five bucks for the bus and just waiting to see if they land back in jail.

Yeah, yeah, personal responsibility I know. But your concern for society is notably missing if you don't believe in any steps whatsoever to be on the lookout for re-offending. "Debt to society" only applies, apparently, to the money it costs to imprison people, and never mind preventing crime.

You don't believe in extenuating circumstances, so you advocate a stark discontinuity in punishment: full punishment for the crime, according to the letter of the law, or no punishment whatsoever. That's fine for the worst cases, since they'd get full punishment anyway, but anywhere near that line of accidental/negligent/deliberate intent it would be hugely unjust whether the finding was guilt or innocence. You can't enforce treatment on a person who is found not guilty, it's a violation of their personal sovereignty. So you just let them go, and wait to see if they land in trouble again. Never mind trying to prevent crime, right? They're either a criminal or they're not. Hell, why not go the whole hog and eliminate distinctions like premeditation -- a killer takes a life, there should be one punishment because what does the killer's intention matter? A life's a life, right?

Without consideration of age, you will be executing five-year-olds for accidentally shooting someone dead (age doesn't matter, so we can assume that the kid had an adult level of understanding about firearms.) But preventing crime isn't the point is it? Execute the little murderer, that'll teach the four year olds not to play dumb!

Forced labour is a nice way of saying "slavery." It's also directly contrary to rehabilitation, because instead of giving the inmate experience of the working environment they will hopefully be getting a job in after release, where a job is something they do to get benefits (most notably, pay) you are instead acclimatizing them to slavery -- being forced to work. The most likely outcome of that is that when not forced to work, they won't work, and instead commit some crime to get by. But hey, that's a winner isn't it because then we get to punish some bad guys, and never mind the victims.

And as to the "repaying their debt to society" I don't think it is reasonable to apply a standard to criminals which no free person would accept. Unless they're a Hero of the Revolution and applauded for their contribution, no free person is held to account for whether their contribution to society is positive or negative.

Yeah, you can force prisoners to work, but if you're spouting some hypocritical shit about their life being measured by contribution to society, and not applying the same measurement to yourself, the effect will be exactly the opposite of rehabilitation. It will be alienation, and hostility to society itself. You've equipped them for slavery, not employment. If you want them downtrodden, angry and resentful but obedient to the Man when he's there, slavery is just the ticket.

But that doesn't matter does it? We got to punish someone, and those criminals are volunteers. It makes us all feel better about our own lives to have the opportunity to make someone else as miserable as possible. That's what the law is for ... nothing to do with preventing crime at all!

[Meoton]

My personal opinion.
Mental patients on field trips are okay.
Mental patients with history of violence and escape not okay.
At the very least put a locking ankle bracelet with a gps on him.

[Geniasis]

Not that it has any particular relevance to the topic, but I seem to recall a mentally insane man who went on a killing spree. To narrow it down a bit, he apparently had some idea that all was not well and before losing his mind entirely wrote a note claiming as much and imploring society to research mental illness to prevent someone else from ending up like him (my memory tells me his letter insisted that a sum of his money was to be donated to that very cause but I dare not trust it). The discussion of this topic made me very interested in that old story.

Does this ring any bells for anyone? At any rate I find that despite his tragic (or would it be pathetic? Literary speaking, of course) end his actions to try and and ensure that he would be the last were quite noble indeed.

[Lucky Bicycle Works]

My personal opinion.
Mental patients on field trips are okay.
Mental patients with history of violence and escape not okay.

That's exactly the problem with the fairground management claiming a right to know before admitting the patients. They will very likely err on the side of caution, and not admit any patients. Collectively, they pose a higher risk to other patrons, perhaps ... but almost certainly some of them pose a lower risk (being shy, and moreover being under supervision) than 'normal' fairgoers.

Health profiling. Is that any better than racial profiling?

[Non Aligned States]

I don't think I have to prove that. It follows from the meaning of "rehabilitation" and "release."

Rehab in this case is getting this person to stop listening to the voices in the head. That does not require exposure to external society.

But let's say we go along with this idea. Obviously, shackles won't do very much if you intend to acclimatize the person to society without fetters. So how about simply having them stuck with a handler, who is implanted with a proximity radio tag, and given a panic button. Of course, the patient would be fitted with low powered explosive bracelets and anklets as part of the complement. No need for a large guard detail then, which would rather put a damper on the rehabilitation. Or if you're squeamish about that, then electroshock anklets/bracelets.

I do wonder if there would be such a fuss if Paul had absconded from a day-release job, instead of a recreational outing. People react against a killer having any fun ... would they react so strongly if instead he'd been out of the hospital to work a job for pay?

Wouldn't have mattered a whit if he had been stopping for a burger, working for pocket money or visiting a fun house. The inmate is mentally unstable, violent and has committed murder. Control over his actions and movements is the responsibility of the hospital he is warded in. If the hospital cannot exercise sufficient control as to prevent escape attempts, then allowing him outside into even less secure environments is both stupid and dangerous.

Well, let me ask you that directly. Would you be more tolerant of Paul being released with supervision, if the life experience he was supposedly getting was a real job instead of a visit to the fair?

I will give that maybe rehabilitation does require some level of re-association with society. But I will not settle for any less than control measures as secure, or greater than, high security prisoner transport.

Good for you. You don't believe in parole, which is the supervision of released ex-cons and the restriction on them doing certain things (like moving interstate without telling anyone, or associating with certain people) which would be first step towards re-offending if they were going to. You prefer giving them five bucks for the bus and just waiting to see if they land back in jail.

Instead of parole which is little more than a "promise not to break the law and we'll let you go early", it is more efficient to implement prisoner work program tie-ins that would allow training and partial employment in incarceration and full time employment after their sentence is done. The entry qualifications for enrollment in such programs can be based off the existing requirements for eligibility for parole.

Yeah, yeah, personal responsibility I know.

Yes. You do not get to escape paying your debt to society simply because you repent or have behaved well. Debt to society however, is not the cost of imprisonment. It is the cost of your crime. A justice system must both be harsh but fair, or it fails to provide justice.

never mind preventing crime.

Crime in most cases falls under two categories. Economic, or emotional. Emotional crimes are nearly impossible to prevent in most circumstances, as the perpetrator does not care about the consequences at the time of the crime. Economic crimes on the other hand, are a bit easier to prevent, though it would require a level of economic juggling that would be very daunting, and not likely to make you friends with economic leaders.

You don't believe in extenuating circumstances, so you advocate a stark discontinuity in punishment: full punishment for the crime, according to the letter of the law, or no punishment whatsoever. That's fine for the worst cases, since they'd get full punishment anyway, but anywhere near that line of accidental/negligent/deliberate intent it would be hugely unjust whether the finding was guilt or innocence.

I think you misunderstand. Murder is murder. Manslaughter is manslaughter. Both crimes have the same outcome, but are judged differently on the basis of intent. That is fine as is. When I rule out extenuating circumstances, I rule out the idea that people are somehow less culpable simply because they didn't know better. That eliminates age and mental conditions as an excuse to escape punishment. By all means, let them have their rehabilitation, but only as part of their sentence.

You can't enforce treatment on a person who is found not guilty, it's a violation of their personal sovereignty.

Treatment for what? And by what do you mean guilt? Actual guilt of a crime committed, or merely legal guilt where you are not charged, even if you actually did commit the crime?

Your examples below regarding non-extenuating circumstances operate on the basis of the misunderstanding I highlighted above, so I won't be addressing them.

Forced labour is a nice way of saying "slavery."

Given the conditions specified, it is more accurate to describe it as debt slavery.

And as to the "repaying their debt to society" I don't think it is reasonable to apply a standard to criminals which no free person would accept. Unless they're a Hero of the Revolution and applauded for their contribution, no free person is held to account for whether their contribution to society is positive or negative.

Let me put it this way. If you steal a bunch of t-shirts and stationary from a store, you go to jail. The length of imprisonment varies, depending on the whims of the judge. It can be, and is sometimes, arbitrary. The length of imprisonment in my preferred system would be the duration it takes for the person to work off the cost of the stolen items. Much more uniform, and much more in balance with the weight of the crime committed.

[Non Aligned States]

Health profiling. Is that any better than racial profiling?

You aren't likely to commit crimes on the basis of the color of your skin. The risk you pose to others depending on the condition of your health on the other hand, is much more real. Imagine if instead of mental patients, it was patients with polio.

[Zombie PotatoHeads]

What I want to know is...why? Why would you take a criminally insane man....to the fair? Who the Hell thought this was a good idea?

I hope someone gets fire over this.

'gets fire'?
One would think that's even more irresponsible than taking a crazy person to the fair. Let alone we have had the secret of fire for thousands of years already, so being given some is not that big a deal anymore.

[Extreme Ironing]

That was probably Intangelon trying to escape the insane convicts choir he was conducting. And the girl he murdered was just a soprano singing rather diminished, and evil, 5ths, so the 'witch' charge is appropriate for someone dabbling with the Devil in music.

[Muravyets]

You can't read can you? Or rather, you're trying not to. He killed someone while listening to voices in his head. There is no evidence to suggest that he is rehabilitated. He is an active risk and can kill again. You do not let rabid dogs wherever they please until they bite someone again. You keep them out and you put them down.

The same could be said of you or anybody else, even without a mental illness or a history of violence. Anyone could kill someone else, for a variety of reasons. So should we ban all public gatherings on the grounds that something bad MIGHT happen?

The argument has been made that since this patient had been granted limited liberty for several years, that means that he was not a risk. I would argue that since he was still in care at all, he was clearly not considered okay to roam around completely without supervision, and considering his particular history, he should have been under closer supervision than he obviously was.

But neither of those arguments agrees with your "throw away the key" approach. Regardless of what you think of the merits of your proposals, the law and psychiatry disagree with you, and I am more inclined to go along with those views based on years of working with the criminally insane, versus your views based on apparently nothing but being a big tough guy on social issues.

So I would say the hospital is a fault for losing this patient, but not at fault for treating this patient as they deemed appropriate.

Now as for your ANFO analogy,

Which you avoided.

Dismissal =/= avoidance.

A known arsonist is highly unlikely to get a job as a driver of trucks loaded with explosives. But a known arsonist who has done his time and/or gone through whatever kind of treatment program and been declared good to release is not going to be banned from working ever again or even going out in public again, as you would wish to be done to any person who commits a crime as a result of insanity.

Since your example was unrealistic, it should be dismissed.

Paul was never found guilty of any crime,

Blatant lie. He was found guilty of murder but was considered mentally insane at the time.

No, it is true. Not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect is still not guilty. Despite the fact that it was proven as a matter of fact that he did commit a murder, because the crime was caused by his mental illness, no personal guilt attaches to his actions because he was not mentally competent to form deliberate intent.

Therefore, he is not guilty of a crime, even though he did actually do the deed.

As I say if you think all people in his situation should be 'locked in a cell' forever

Another blatant lie on your part. I never specified that they should be locked away forever. You are manufacturing things out of thin air.

You never offered any other options, however. If they are not to be locked away forever, then under what circumstances should they be released? Especially with mentally ill people, how are you going to be sure they can function in society if you never observe them in social situations?

[Muravyets]

he still the culprit, just not the convict...Its confusing I know, and he probably would have been charged had he been suited for court.

In short, he is guilty. He just cannot be legally charged for it. Semantic difference, and makes him no less dangerous.

It is not a semantic difference. It is a legal difference and therefore it matters.

As to whether he is still dangerous, that is up to the doctors to decide, not you. As I have said before, since he was still in care at all, he is clearly not able to be out of care. But that does not mean we should assume that there is a slavering homicidal lunatic running loose just looking for a knife and a throat to cut. It does mean that this person needs to be found and returned to care as soon as possible, however.

[Muravyets]

My personal opinion.
Mental patients on field trips are okay.
Mental patients with history of violence and escape not okay.

That's exactly the problem with the fairground management claiming a right to know before admitting the patients. They will very likely err on the side of caution, and not admit any patients. Collectively, they pose a higher risk to other patrons, perhaps ... but almost certainly some of them pose a lower risk (being shy, and moreover being under supervision) than 'normal' fairgoers.

Health profiling. Is that any better than racial profiling?

I agree with you that the fairground management did not need to be informed since they are not in any way experts on assessing mental health or managing dangerous people, as well as the fact that, if they spend their time obsessing over protecting their liability insurance by barring mental patients, that will do nothing to protect them from drunk or angry or criminal non-patient visitors attacking someone else.

But I think Meoton was talking about what the hospital should have done, and his suggestion seems reasonable to me.

[Bitchkitten]

Why would you take a criminally insane man....to the fair?

Because if there's anything worse than a nutter, it's a bored nutter.

Idle hands is the Devil's workshop?

Well, why not have them join a chain gang and pick up trash off the Highway? Why let mentally unbalanced people go to the fair where you know, there's children, and families etc.

The mentally ill should not be treated like a run of the mill prisoner. They shouldn't be punished because they are mentally ill by being used as slave labor. The hospital should be blamed for it's mistake in judgement, obviously this particuliar patient shouldn't have been allowed on the field trip.

[Non Aligned States]

The same could be said of you or anybody else, even without a mental illness or a history of violence. Anyone could kill someone else, for a variety of reasons. So should we ban all public gatherings on the grounds that something bad MIGHT happen?

Well, either the man is still mentally unstable, and thus susceptible to doing more murder by "insanity", or he is not. That he is still undergoing the program and not released indicates that he is not rehabilitated no? I see nothing wrong with heightened security concerns over someone who has already killed someone out of mental instability and has not yet been rehabilitated. Do you?

But neither of those arguments agrees with your "throw away the key" approach. Regardless of what you think of the merits of your proposals, the law and psychiatry disagree with you, and I am more inclined to go along with those views based on years of working with the criminally insane, versus your views based on apparently nothing but being a big tough guy on social issues.

As with my progressing discussion with bicycle works, I am willing to extend the idea of open environment rehabilitation as a viable means of treatment, but with extra layers of security to make escape attempts somewhat... inconvenient to the inmates. I imagine you would not disagree with that, barring on what degree of additional security would be appropriate.

A known arsonist is highly unlikely to get a job as a driver of trucks loaded with explosives. But a known arsonist who has done his time and/or gone through whatever kind of treatment program and been declared good to release is not going to be banned from working ever again or even going out in public again, as you would wish to be done to any person who commits a crime as a result of insanity.

This is rather a false analogy, as the person in questioned was not yet fully rehabilitated no? In this analogy, the arsonist would have escaped from prison and is at large.

Since your example was unrealistic, it should be dismissed.

Trucks, fertilizer and fuel oil are not that hard to come by in quantity, and can be staggered in small quantity purchase with varying false identities in order to avoid triggering suspicion.

No, it is true. Not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect is still not guilty. Despite the fact that it was proven as a matter of fact that he did commit a murder, because the crime was caused by his mental illness, no personal guilt attaches to his actions because he was not mentally competent to form deliberate intent.

Therefore, he is not guilty of a crime, even though he did actually do the deed.

Legal guilt as opposed to actual guilt, yes, I will concede that it is true that Paul was not found legally guilty by defense of insanity. However, it doesn't mean he is any less culpable though.

You never offered any other options, however. If they are not to be locked away forever, then under what circumstances should they be released? Especially with mentally ill people, how are you going to be sure they can function in society if you never observe them in social situations?

I didn't offer any other options because I did not rule out the pre-existing ones of controlled environment rehabilitation. To go from that to an option I never put forth was dishonest of Sitspot.

Still, as I have mentioned earlier, I am amenable to the idea of limited open environment rehabilitation, but only with security measures in place to ensure any possible successful escape attempt would be very unlikely. Especially for those with a history of violence based mental illness. Without that, I see no reason whatsoever to approve any form of open environment rehabilitation