I'm just gonna preface this by stating that I'm trying to come after you personally or anything like that, so please don't take my disagreement personally.

yes i know what it means, no idea why you're presuming that

I'm presuming this because you keep indicating that you think that someone who has one mental break must necessarily be at a higher risk to have it happen again, and what I'm saying is that the actions of a person when they experience a mental break like this are not necessarily indicative of their personality or ethics or anything like that. Maybe they're a higher risk, but it's really not up to us laypeople to decide that.

The mental break can be a complete departure from who they are mentally, for whatever reason. Despite the fact that the human mind is surprisingly resilient, under the right (or wrong, rather) conditions, anyone could experience a psychotic break from reality.

Whether someone shits their pants, tries to eat someone's face off, jumps off a building, or whatever else these behaviors during an episode like this do not necessarily reflect that individual's predilection for violence or even the chance of them having a mental break again so long as the underlying problem is fixed.

It's common when thinking about mental health to write people off as being "crazy" (I know you didn't say this) because they did something certifiably insane. But think about it this way, if someone threw up everything they ate when they had the stomach flu, you probably wouldn't assume that they will get the stomach flu again after they've been cured or that they higher risk than anyone else to throw up even when they don't have the flu. If the doctors say the illness has been cured, why would you still expect symptoms?

So, the reason I stress that it was a mental break and that that is different than depression or anxiety or some kind of illness, is because a mental break is most likely a symptom of something else. It is up to the doctors to determine if that something else can be cured, or if there's a risk of recurrence.

Everyone who drinks has the potential to drink and get behind the wheel of a vehicle and run over a herd of schoolchildren, does that mean every person who is over the age of 21 should be required to have a breathalyzer in their car?

I think the proper nomenclature for groups of three or more schoolchildren is a "class."

But seriously, no. I don't think that at all, which is why I said above since anyone can experience a mental break, why don't we all get tested regularly? We shouldn't. That would be ridiculous.

You never really addressed my question: If doctors determined exactly what happened and that it wouldn't happen again with a high degree of certainty, why shouldn't he be released?

Personally, I don't have strong opinions either way about this. What happened with the bus killing was traumatic to read about, I can't imagine the family's grief or what the witnesses went through. I also can't say everything was handled perfectly. The idea that the killed man's family saw his killer one day at a mall afterward sends shivers down my spine. On an emotional level, that would be horrifying. I just don't think I'm in a place to argue that it was handled incorrectly simply because his crimes committed while he was experiencing insanity were so gruesome.

If the doctors are sure it won't happen again, what basis do we have to argue on other than by suggesting that because it happened once he is more likely to do it again? It certainly feels like a common-sense argument, but it rests on the idea that mental illness is forever; once a crazy always a crazy. I don't think that's the case. I think like more familiar physical illness, mental illness is curable.