Can someone who went on a shooting spree let's say, refuse psychotherapy and still get out of the mental institution?

Are you referring to Michael Meyers?

It cannot work. Logically there is no flow in sequence to get the psychiatrist to have measured the sanity of the shooter, therefore not being able to convince a jury of social stability with the shooter.

Would that make sense to you?

The scenario you’ve described, or the question itself?

Either way, no.

No, no, absolutely not. I t makes no sense to me. I was looking for the article.
here
I haven’t finished reading it. It is not a shooting spree, but anyway same difference.

He killed his children. How can that be re-measured whether he will not just flip a switch or not? He can’t, it’s impossible. He’s done the crime, now he must do the time. I don’t believe in the death sentence, but locking him up until his time is up sounds fair to me.

If someone refused treatment, they would not be considered for release.

How incredible is it that they even considering it? He stabbed the 2 children around 50 times in all. The people who are considering it should be looked at, IMHO.

It sounds like there is a disagreement among the people testifying about the guy’s mental state. The article does not mention how much the guy has talked with the two people that think he is no longer a danger. It only mentions that he has only spoken very little with the one who believes he needs to remain detained for at least another year for more therapy.

I wouldn’t want to be on the board deciding what to do with him. If this was an isolated incident related to the events in his life at the time (and his botched suicide attempt) and not related to an underlying mental disorder (which so far even the guy wanted him to remain detained has said “he could find no discernible mental disorder”) makes it a hard case to look at when considering his need for being in a mental institution.

I don’t know if he “can” or not, it remains to be seen. I’ll be very interested to see what happens next. Maybe you could keep us posted…
Google, I love you. I guess I can keep myself posted. Here, here, and here.
Wow.

When I studied some of these issues nearly a decade ago, I remember that “Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity” was actually worse for many people because they may have committed a fairly minor offense but are held for many years until it is deemed safe for their return to society. I don’t think they release patients who aren’t mentally fit enough to return to society.

But ”he refused therapy”, ...“he spoken very little with the one who believes he needs to remain detained for at least another year for more therapy.”
My question is if he has hardly talked, how do they decide that he is not going to do the same kind of thing to some other bunch of people who didn’t do anything to him?

”...he has no wants to get back to work as a cardiologist, and can see himself falling in love again and having more children, probably in another province.”
Is that dillusional or not? Dioes that not show that he is not fit and that he might do something again, since he sees that there is no consequence?

@Trillian re. the links you posted, first one is the latest (for people who are just entering the OP)