No, but you see, that’s different. Trust me, (wink).

It depends, I worked in a similar place and the people there lived in relative comfort. Obviously it's going to be a sad situation regardless, as even in the best of settings they no longer have freedom. but to some of the people in there they preferred it. Many of them had their own collections of books and even some video games and the like in their rooms and they could do things like working at the canteen to occupy their time otherwise. For someone with very severe mental issues, living somewhere that keeps you away from the world and makes sure you're fed and relatively safe can be preferable.

That is like saying a 12 year old should be able to be healed from being quadriplegic because they are still growing. Some medical conditions are for live (at our current medical knowledge) and it doesn't matter if they are "physical" or "mental".

Sure you can. Every psychopath, sociopath, narcissist was that when they were 12. They went on to do bad things later. What makes this person unusual is the lack of impulse control.

Psychologist here, depends on what you mean by treated. Most mental illnesses aren't like a cold where you're able to take some medication and get rid of it, they're more like a chronic back injury that you learn to manage. For most people, some combination of therapy and chemical treatment is sufficient to allow them to live a life where their mental health is managed. There are people whom chemical treatment doesn't work on, sometimes because of unhealthy brain chemistry, and who are unwilling or unable to participate in therapy. Unfortunately for these people, there's not much that can be done for them short of a miracle.

Schizophrenia can be untreatable.

Fachism sometimes too. \j

I worked (admittedly as a custodian, so not an expert at all) in close contact with people who had antipersonality disorder. These were people who had been convicted of sexual assault and had served a sentence then had been deemed unfit to return to society. I don't believe any of them could get any amount of treatment that would have made them truly safe around others, even if they behaved well on their wards.

Mental illness can almost never truly be cured, and some people can be simply too dangerous to be allowed complete freedom. It's sad to think about, but I think until we have a better understanding of the mind and how to better treat people with issues like this, it's better that certain people stay "locked up" as it were. So long as they are given humane treatment and accommodations, of course.

Even though three others have chimed in, as OP I'm gonna give it a go as well.

First off, I'm definitely not an expert. My job was mainly to stay with people who had been constrained to their bed, using leather straps. Other times to make sure the patient had as much freedom as possible, without doing certain things. So pretty low level stuff, like talking, minding my own business, and occasionally dodging fecal matter (not figuratively!)

I met adults who had been psychotic since their early teens. And I met people who were admitted on account of a bad reaction to drugs, mainly marijuana, resulting in them being aggressive and delusional. Then the next week they would be calm and rational, behaving like you and me.

I can't tell you what can be treated, and what can't. But I can tell you that I've met people who did stop being psychotic for the rest of their life. And I can tell you that far far most patients were able to, periodically, live somewhat ordinary lives after getting help.

So many people like to ignore that mentally ill people are rarely acting out just to act out. Yes it happens, but often there’s a line of reasoning, including emotional disregulation and failure to appropriately escalate. Take someone with those traits, lock them up, and add distress to them (especially when you’re frustrated at their behavior) and they’re prone to do whatever they think they can.