This article itself highlights the absolute discomfort I have with this proposal, and why I think it's ultimately unethical. They completely switch from prese

This article itself highlights the absolute discomfort I have with this proposal, and why I think it's ultimately unethical. They completely switch from presenting a case about the "dangerously mentally ill with a propensity for murder" casually to just the "mentally ill." Even drawing a line between the two in the first place can be fraught with ethical difficulties, and all the "advocates" in this process are not duty-bound to the person who's mental health status is about to be "determined" by the state; and it's highly likely everyone else involved in the process will have some financial incentive to start as much treatment as is possible. It's easy to see the imputed process here making more errors than it prevents, since it seems to be a process that can be applied before any guilt is established.