Cho Seung-Hui’s Commitment Papers:
For those of you who are into every minute detail no matter how insignificant it may be, Slate now has the commitment papers of Cho Seung-Hui.
I didn’t find the papers themselves very interesting but rather what was in the article that accompanied it.
The patient exercised his right to counsel by court-appointed attorney Terry W. Teel (see Page 2), and his case was considered and decided by Special Justice and Guardian Ad Litem Paul M. Barnett. Justice Barnett found that although Cho presented “an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness,” there were suitable “alternatives to involuntary hospitalization” available. Cho was ordered instead to get outpatient treatments (see Page 5). No record has been found to confirm whether Cho, who killed 32 people and himself on April 16, ever sought or received the court-ordered treatment.
Just a few quick questions here. If Cho presented an imminent danger to himself why was he not committed? Doesn’t imminent mean inevitable and immediate? Since the court ordered him to attend outpatient treatments was the court supposed to follow up to make sure he was attending? Isn’t that what court-ordered means?
Leave a Reply