"The MacArthur Study on the risk assessment of violence among people with mental illnesses
One should read this study (done over time in the 2000s, and freely available on the Internet) to understand the harm done to people with mental illnesses by a bias in society against them so deep, irrational and pervasive that it has even been enshrined into law. Otherwise, it might be too easy to dismiss a complaint by a person with a mental illness unexamined. As did Judge Kern, who was presented with copies of this study, repeatedly.
In short, this study finds that the risk of violence covers a wide range, with predictable extremes and a very large middle range where no prediction can be statistically accurate. One can compare it to predictions of which people who drink will commit violence under the influence, or maim and/or kill in drunk driving incidents. One can easily predict that teetotalers won’t, and that severe alcoholics, especially those with previous convictions, arrests, wrecks and damages to others, will. In between, the vast majority of social drinkers cannot be predicted with any reliability to become drunk drivers who cause injury and death. In other words, it's easy to characterize the tails of a bell curve and use them to tar all the rest. Like Rush Limbaugh with "sluts".
Now imagine a society of Christian and other Fundamentalists, where drinking alcohol is so feared and loathed that any who drink at any level are subject to lower standards of evidence, proof and justice - "For the protection of society". Where anyone who is merely accused of thinking about drinking and driving can be locked up. Where, in consideration of society's interest in public safety, it's not too much of an imposition on civil liberties to lock up any person so accused, until that person can prove to "expert examiners", known in the past as inquisitors, that he or she is not a danger to others. One might guess that a member of the Court might not like that shoe on his or her foot. If so, then living among the Taliban or Iranians or Saudis might not be advisable. They seem to be a bit prejudiced that way.
Or one might imagine a society where women who read trashy romantic novels might be locked up, just to satisfy the mullahs and rushlimbites, who fear “the corruption of our precious young!” Until those women can prove they are in no danger of becoming prostitutes and pole dancers. As some church lady might say, “You know Those People read that kind of trash!” One understands from the newspaper that even Judge Dreiling might be a tad inconvenienced by that standard of justice. A lot of people wouldn’t like those shoes on their feet, but find it perfectly acceptable to bind the feet of those less able to fight back.
It must feel very satisfying to have such an impact on “improving” society. "