".. competent enough to decide they don't want to be there but not competent enough to meaningfully integrate with society..."
At some level these should be mutually exclusive conditions; one (unable to integrate) is the major fact that disproves the other (competent enough for self-determination).
"but would become sufficiently lucid to disinter themselves before discontinuing medication and resuming drinking and drugging."
If someone is forcibly committed to an institution, there would almost certainly need to be a set of steps to transition to a non-institutionalized way of living. For example, a probation-like system to monitor progress and look for signs of relapse and non-compliance would almost need to exist. Halfway house stays may also make the transition more likely to stick. probably some combination of those.
Much of this sounds like the kind of things you do in criminal matters. It's not surprising that it would. The resemblance is only because both deal with behavioral issues requiring the denial of personal liberties. However, we mustn't view this kind of thing like its about criminality, someone that isn't sufficiently mentally sound enough to support themselves isn't a criminal: almost certainly not from a moral point of view.
But at some point, the impacts on society by the extremely mentally ill can be just as negative as someone acting with criminal intent. So appropriate responses may look similar, but for the mentally ill they should not be punitive.
> one (unable to integrate) is the major fact that disproves the other (competent enough for self-determination).
Except that just isn't even remotely anything like true. Every adult is presumed competent until a court has declared the converse and merely mental illness is not by itself sufficient to provide this.
It has a legal meaning that isn't malleable to meet what you think ought to be true. Merely being a loser who wants to live in a tent and do meth doesn't make one legally incompetent and in fact any attempt to patch that bug with law alone will probably run into constitutional challenges
"Except that just isn't even remotely anything like true. Every adult is presumed competent until a court has declared the converse and merely mental illness is not by itself sufficient to provide this."
Who's disputing this? If we start with the person already being hospitalized, which seemed to be true in your comment ("were interred there") my comment stands. If by "interred there" you mean self admitted, well, OK... sure they could check themselves out... but that's not the scenario that the article raises. The meaning of "interred" as I understood it, and a brief review of the article seems to agree with my understanding, we're talking about an involuntary commitment. If that's the case, we can presume a legal process was performed to get the person in question in the hospital in the first place: establishing legal mental incompetence. Therefore, a legal process regarding release should, if its to be consistent, operate on the premise that, "one (unable to integrate) is the major fact that disproves the other (competent enough for self-determination)".
"Merely being a loser who wants to live in a tent and do meth doesn't make one legally incompetent and in fact any attempt to patch that bug with law alone will probably run into constitutional challenges"
And the initial premise has been challenged, kind of... the 9th circuit stopped Boise, ID from breaking up a homeless encampment on the grounds of cruel and unusual punishment. But Boise didn't actually provide for an alternative to the encampment: it fined and sentenced them to a a day or two in jail (most of them were sentenced time served)... the response was entirely punitive. Note that the right to camp/do wherever you want, uninvited, on public or other's property wasn't the right being protected: there is no constitutional right to that. It was that arbitrary punishments were being dolled out.
Having said that, there are already laws already instituting involuntary treatment and hospitalization, so the constitutional challenges may not be so clear cut as you might think:
At some level these should be mutually exclusive conditions; one (unable to integrate) is the major fact that disproves the other (competent enough for self-determination).
"but would become sufficiently lucid to disinter themselves before discontinuing medication and resuming drinking and drugging."
If someone is forcibly committed to an institution, there would almost certainly need to be a set of steps to transition to a non-institutionalized way of living. For example, a probation-like system to monitor progress and look for signs of relapse and non-compliance would almost need to exist. Halfway house stays may also make the transition more likely to stick. probably some combination of those.
Much of this sounds like the kind of things you do in criminal matters. It's not surprising that it would. The resemblance is only because both deal with behavioral issues requiring the denial of personal liberties. However, we mustn't view this kind of thing like its about criminality, someone that isn't sufficiently mentally sound enough to support themselves isn't a criminal: almost certainly not from a moral point of view.
But at some point, the impacts on society by the extremely mentally ill can be just as negative as someone acting with criminal intent. So appropriate responses may look similar, but for the mentally ill they should not be punitive.