romanP romanP:
No, you can't. There has to be a motive, a means and an action carried out in order to convict someone and put them in prison. Try to contest this all you want, but the justice system has volumes of text to beat you over the head with and prove you wrong a hundred thousand times.
Roman you're not paying attention. Slow down. Lets do this again:
You:
$1:
So what I was saying is that just because he was picked up by police for odd behavior, and diagnosed with schizophrenia, was not grounds to lock him up indefinitely.
Me:
$1:
No but it is grounds to keep him under observation to decern if he should be 'locked up' indefinitely....
you:
$1:
You can't just lock someone up based on suspicion that they might do something in the future. Some form of violence has to be committed before that can happen. Legally, the system has no right to keep anyone in a mental hospital or prison if they have not presented a clear and present danger to other people.
Me:
$1:
Well yes actually you can. And he did commit 'some form of violence', read the article. Don't debate me, debate the psychiatrists who wanted and had every legal right to do exactly that: 'lock him up' on the suspicion that, based on his mental illness, he could cause harm to themselves or others. Don't forget: they often hurt themselves as well. Considering they don't often 'lock them up' I think that's important in this case.
That's not my opinion Roman, it's law. If you will bother to read the story once more, please, you will see, as I've been pointing out, that indeed psychiatrists did 'lock him up' for observation, which is their legal right. So 'no' you cant 'beat me over the head with law volumes' to prove me wrong. From the story, Roman, are you paying attention? Good. Here it is:
$1:
Despite being placed on a Form 3 certificate – an involuntary admission document that forces patients thought to pose a risk to themselves or others into a psychiatric facility for up to 14 days – Mr. Li defied doctors by leaving after just 10 days.
http://www.canadaka.net/link.php?id=42325^^^This is what we're talking about Roman, so please stop telling us it can't be done, because it is done with just about every single schizophrenic.That's what we're talking about, so please stop making a fool out of yourself with
"I can hit you over the head with volumes of law" blah blah blah.
Unbelievable.
$1:
Fair enough, but as I said before, neither you nor I have a crystal ball to predict the future. You cannot know what a person will do until they have done it, and you cannot put a person in prison for simply making a string of poor decisions that are not considered violence or crime by the legal system.
We're not talking about Minority Report dude. We're talking about a system currently in place in which psychiatrists study or observe schizophrenics to determine whether or not they can live on their own without being a danger to themselves or others. And in this case Roman it has long ago been considered that yes, you can indeed with some accuracy determine whether or not a schizophrenic is likely to commit some act of violence against themselves or others. This is a law. I don't have to argue it. It's right there in the article so could you please start paying attention and don't half-quote people. If you can't debate what was said then you can't debate.
Don't rush back with a post that says, "No you can't just lock somebody up" because they did, Roman and yes they can if the person in question is a schizophrenic who is deemed dangerous to themselves or others.Akh
![[B-o]](./images/smilies/drinkup.gif "Drink up")
CKA Elite 
CKA Uber 
Bring it on.
