I was doing my normal web wander for odd news, and saw this item. Obviously, while the gory details are there, the ones that I’d think are most important for determining whether this James Yang is a hazard to the community are missing: whether he’d been diagnosed prior to his attack; and how responsive he was to taking them, while in treatment. Because of that, I don’t feel that we can discuss this case, specifically, in any signifigant manner.
Having said that, this case illustrates to me an important issue about mental health and its perceptions in the public eye.
My understanding is that every state in the US, and most places following English common law traditions, allow for finding a defendant not guilty by reason of insanity. I know that this is not a “get-out-of-jail-free” card. Certainly, not everyone remanded to such care is going to be a candidate for release. I don’t have stats, but my impression is that most people who are judged to be not guilty by reason of insanity do not end up qualifying for release.
So, my hypothetical is this: A man is found at the scene of a gruesome murder. Investigation leaves everyone certain that not only did he do the crime, but at the time, he was so far out of touch with reality that he met the standard for meeting the requirements of being not guilty by reason of insanity: he has no ability, anymore, to judge what is right or wrong.
To some degree, for this hypothetical, it doesn’t matter exactly what the details of the crime might be. I’d rather not show off just how sick my imagination can get with the details of the worst thing someone could do while insane, and still be unaccountable for their actions. Let’s just leave it as gruesome, and not discuss details, please.
Now, fast forward five years down the road.
The man involved in this case has been diagnosed, treated, and working very hard on regaining control of his life. He’s shown absolutely no desire to skip or evade his medications, and seems to be, for want of a better term, cured.
Would you want to keep him in custody anyways? Or, contrariwise - would you allow him to move into your neighborhood?
My thinking on this is that the time to complain about the man’s potential for release to the community would have been when he was found to meet the standards of being too insane to be held accountable for his actions. Once that was found to be the case, the potential for his early release to the community was there. If we, as a culture and society, are going to recognize that there are times and people who can’t be held accountable for their actions before a court of law, we have to be willing to accept that there can be situations like my hypothetical, or like James Yang’s case.
Having said that, I think that the public should have the right to see at least some of James Yang’s medical case notes. For me, one thing that would be very important is to be able to judge how likely it would be that several months down the road he might decide that he’s been cured, and doesn’t need his medications. It’s a common enough progression for people dealing with mental illness. And, as a specific example, it is part of what allowed the Capitol shooter, a few years back, to go back to dangerous modes of thinking.
So, as long as the person in my hypothetical wasn’t likely to evade his continuing treatments, I think he should be allowed to live whereever he can afford. Of course, I’d be pretty unnerved, having him for a next-door neighbor. I would probably want to try to befriend him, if he were my neighbor: If no other reason, it would allow me to have contact with him, and maybe be able to see if he were regressing in his thinking. Besides, as one nut to another, shouldn’t we cover each other’s backs? 
I’ve put this in IMHO because I’m looking for a poll, I think, rather than a learned debate. If the mods think that this topic would be more at home in GD, please feel free to move it. I just figured it would get more attention here.