See below for the Washington Post article in which they chase after enforcement of outpatient commitment as the problem rather than the obvious, which is that if outpatient commitment had not been an option in Virginia in 2005, Cho would have been committed to an inpatient unit and had much more of a chance of someone noticing how much was going wrong with him than in a 10 minute evaluation, 10 minute hearing and one night stay in a hospital.
The obvious response to a horrible crime perpetrated by someone who was outpatient committed after a hearing finding of dangerousness is to abolish outpatient commitment as an option, not to make it more common! Cho is a clear argument against the very existence of outpatient commitment in Virginia and elsewhere and yet somehow entities such as the Post who have been long time supporters of more outpatient commitment are using it to push for, guess what, more outpatient commitment?
And of course they are going after the “imminent” standard despite the fact that Cho was found to be dangerous under the “imminent” standard in existence. This is nothing more than the Post and others pushing their pre-existing agenda and ignoring the facts of the case to do so. This isn’t journalism, it’s propaganda.
