Not sure what we are discussing - if doctors can decide someone as being disturbed and dangerous then they by definition can also decide that they are not.

Now, this is obviously a hard and delicate problem when it comes to the releasing part of the equation.

But the argument that they are either incapable or untrustworthy to make the judgment doesn't fly - why were they capable and trustworthy when locking someone up then?

> why were they capable and trustworthy when locking someone up then?

1) The person would have been locked up whether found sane or insane. The only different was location.

2) You are admitting facts not in evidence, when you assume that the doctors were capable and trustworthy when determining the insanity. There is science and there is Science.

> The person would have been locked up whether found sane or insane. The only different was location.

Right. Which is why that decision is done with lower stakes. But

> You are admitting facts not in evidence, when you assume that the doctors were capable and trustworthy when determining the insanity.

All I'm saying is that regardless of how accurate and trustworthy they are, if we trust them do do A we better trust them when doing B, even if the stakes and risk of mistakes are higher.

I can't see any other solution, do you? The only theoretically possible solution would be to lock people up for life if found insane - but I don't think that's a viable approach.