Standing By Your Sex-Hobbyist -Man; Because It's Your Fault Too?

THE BIG QUESTION:
WHY WAS CHO FREE?

Now comes news that a court in 2005 found Virginia Tech gunman Cho Seung-Hui to be "mentally ill" and an "imminent danger to others" - but then let him go. Anyone who doubts that the court's diagnosis was correct need only reference the video diatribe Cho mailed to NBC news, which aired the clip last night.

That Cho was free is an outrage.

But it's not exactly news that American courts regularly elevate abstract personal rights above those of the public. Certainly, many questions remain in the the Virginia Tech massacre. But it's not too soon to wonder why in hell Cho was left to wander freely after that sort of a court finding - and numerous other warnings as well.

Were authorities so concerned with Cho's rights that they declined not only to commit him to a secure hospital, but even allowed him to stay in school?

Most perplexing: How on earth was Cho able legally to purchase a gun, given his history of mental illness?

Yes, the law in this country is deferential to individual rights - as opposed to those of society in general. That's the American way. But ever since the development of effective psychotropic drugs back in the '60s spurred the so-called "de-institutionalization" movement - fancy words for dumping mental patients on the streets - it's been clear that in this realm, at least, the pendulum desperately needs to swing back in favor of the public.

Nothing drives home that point more painfully than the 32 murders committed Monday at VT. And, yes, Cho's own suicide.

Looking back at Cho's past, the red flags just leap right out:

* More than a year ago, he was accused of stalking two female students.

* Officials feared he might be suicidal.

* Teachers say his writings were dark and twisted, and students say he shunned eye contact and conversation.

* His behavior so alarmed faculty that he was removed from an English class and urged to get counseling.

* Some reports suggest he was taking medication for depression.

But most troubling is the finding by the Virginia court - issued in a "temporary detention order" - that Cho was unstable and dangerous. If so, why was he sent only to outpatient care, rather than confined to a forensic ward in a secure hospital?

Cho apparently did go to a nearby pyschiatric center for evaluation. But so far there's been little evidence of any meaningful action after that. He was also referred to the school's disciplinary system. But federal law is so skewed toward individual rights that university officials said yesterday that they can't divulge any information about that.

New York has had its own painful experiences with mentally ill individuals who were shown far too much latitude. When Kendra Webdale lost her life in 1999 at the hands of a violent, mentally ill man who had stopped taking his medication, the Empire State finally woke up. Albany passed Kendra's Law, which provided for forced medication of the violent mentally ill.

Surely, there's more that New York can do to protect the public - without unreasonably infringing on personal rights. But it may well turn out that Virginia - and other parts of the nation - are behind even New York.

Meanwhile, America awaits a timely explanation as to why Cho Seung-Hui - armed to the teeth and declared by a court to be dangerous - was on the VT campus in the first place.

And as to what Virginia's plans are to ensure it won't happen again.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

CREEPED-OUT PROF'S WARNINGS FELL ON DEAF EARS
By ANDREA PEYSER

BLACKSBURG, Va. - It now seems dozens of people on the Virginia Tech campus saw the rampage coming. For two solid years.

But the campus police refused to step in against the maniac. The administration buried its head in the sand.

Only one professor had the guts to try her mightiest to remove the ticking time bomb that was Cho Seung-Hui from the classroom.

"It takes a lot to scare me," Professor Lucinda Roy told me yesterday about her memorable encounters with Cho.

It was back in 2005 and Roy, then English Department head, got wind of disturbing writings he penned in class. She let Cho know of the concern.

Then Cho wrote a sick note in response. "It was very angry," she said.

She said legal reasons prevent her from disclosing the exact content.

Right. I don't believe the dead need to be protected. College administrations definitely do.

The note caused Roy to act, and quickly. "I called the Virginia Tech police. Student affairs. The College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. The counseling center."

So what do you think all those eggheads did? Nothing. Zip.

"I was told I didn't have grounds for removing him," she said. Something about his right to "free speech."

With a crisis on her hands, Roy decided to hold one-on-one classes with her student, from October 2005 through December.

The next year, he was back in class with others.

Cho lived his final days at a respected college campus jammed with the things he most despised: rich kids, old men and women of all ages.

He was screaming out - for something. For help? For understanding? To be stopped before he killed?

We may never know, because no one wanted to.

Nobody, except one, would listen.

andrea.peyser@nypost.com

ORIGINAL

THE NAMES & FACES OF THE VT VICTIMS

JBLOG ME