Oooh, not to jump on you, but the whole point of our legal system is that you don't forfeit your rights just because you commit a crime. You'll lose rights after you're convicted of a crime, but not until then.

Like I noted above, yes you do get some things taken away if indicted. E.g., being jailed, or having assets frozen.

Vortex said it better.

As did bon bon.

Popping in to wish much, much health and recovery-ma to Jeff, and to very firmly instruct his kidney and the rest of his body that they must stop quarreling at once. They're all on the same team and there is to be absolutely no infighting.

Also, healthma to the pneumonic but still lovely Rio, and big birthday kisses to Annabel.

Also, joining the "knows-nothing-about-law-but-is-fascinated-by-the-res-whatsit-discussion" corner, which is nicely crowded with all sortsa cool people, and also is rumored to have cookies.

I think there's difference between forfeiting rights and losing rights. The former is a function of the mindset of the accused/committer. Did he/she knowingly commit this crime and thus forfeit some rights as a result? The second is a function of our legal system weighing the interests of society to secure the accused for trial against the accused's own civil rights that he/she may never have "forfeited" since he/she may never have commited the accused of crime.

and also is rumored to have cookies.

I am indeed eating animal crackers for lunch right now.

I am indeed eating animal crackers for lunch right now.

Your firm's gotta stop spoiling you guys.

To me, being locked up indefinitely without being able to adequately participate in one's defense, is a bigger restriction on my rights, than being forcibly medicated for a finite time, particularly if/since there's a possibility that being forcibly medicated means it might be possible to avoid being locked up at all.

Animal crackers! Day and night!

Also I am having, no joke, a Mounds bar for lunch. Because, as this discussion has demonstrated, sometimes you feel like a nut, and sometimes you don't.

Part of my concern is "Is she crazy or is she just different"? What's her base state? Would she eventually come to a more normative state with medication and stay there without being maintained there?

Mental state and drugs is still a very tricky place for me. Minds are infinitely diverse, and I haven't gotten my own self completely around the idea of manipulating brains. Don't jump on me, I know there are lots of people who couldn't be their own quirky individual selves without some help. And I know you can't leave people who kidnap kids out in the world. I keep thinking, though, that someone should say to the woman, "YOu know society disapproves of taking children from their homes, right? No matter what God may be telling you? You understand that the way things stand now we're keeping you locked up until we think you're functioning on a more stable footing, right? OK, then." That way she keeps her own possibly flawed integrity and society doesn't have to worry about what she might get up to next.

I suppose my philosophy on this is Act how you want, accept the consequences no matter what. It doesn't keep people from comitting crimes, but it would keep people from whining in courts that they were misunderstood. I believe a good 90% of those folks who apologize are actually saying, "I'm real sorry I got caught," not "I'm real sorry I did it."