re: dangerous, I should have as much right as a schizophrenic to be violent and still refuse unwanted psychiatric treatment as a violent nonschizophrenic would have, as long as I'm competent. Charge me with assault or whatever other charge is appropriate, but if I know which way is up, can make change for a $20, can tell you who the President is, can answer a few logical puzzles, and can explain back to you the meaning of the law against assaulting people that I've just violated by smacking you upside the head, my schizophrenia is not relevant and forced treatment should not be imposed.
---
Here is the first courtwatch report to which I've been provided access by the NY group. It isn't "statistics" precisely, since the data analysis is qualitative. (The relevant variables are rather difficult to quantify without raising serious questions about how they were operationalized, so this is more honest anyway).
Hamlet (and anyone else wishing to argue from firsthand experience that the procedures are fair and the protections honored): After reading the materials at the above link, perhaps you would care to comment on how your observations have differered from what is described here?
Explanatory note re: the link: A Rivers hearing is specifically required in New York State in order to impose forced treatment. The standard is higher than the standard for commitment -- you need only be "mentally ill" and dangerous to self and/or others in order to be committed involuntarily, but you still retain the right to refuse treatment as an incarcerated mental patient in NYS subsequent to the court case Rivers v Katz until and unless it can be demonstrated in a hearing that you are also incapable of understanding the risks and benefits and/or are not able to reach a reasoned decision through a coherent and explicable thinking process. In other words, effectively a competency hearing. (I've been saying throughout this thread that involuntary commitment should be scrapped and that incarceration should be dependent on violation of law or demonstration of incompetency, period). The "bifurcated" hearing occasionally referred to on the linked site is one where the issue of retention (keeping you against your will, i.e., commitment) is being considered as well as the issue of the right to refuse treatment (the Rivers hearing).
Original SDMB thread - Psychology, the law, and being committed
See my previous post on this same thread