In responding to the Mental Health Bill 2004, the Mental Health Alliance stated that it "is rooted in an out-dated, false stereotype that people with mental health problems are a danger to society and are unable to make their own decision about care and treatment. The revised bill remains objectionable in principle and unworkable in practice." There is, in fact, convincing evidence that people labeled as mentally disordered offenders are significantly less likely to engage in repeat offending even when their conviction is for a serious offense. New reforms have united health professionals and medical practitioners in their condemnation of the proposals. They argue that detention has been proposed without clear diagnostic rigor for people who have not violated any law. Further, the Mental Health Alliance has argued that the definition of those who qualify for treatment against their will is too broad, forcing professionals to bring too many people in for compulsory treatment, which damages trust between doctor and patient. In addition, professional bodies argue that proposed legislation will reinforce the public misconception that mentally ill people are dangerous. The future thus looks bleak under a Mental Health Act that threatens to focus excessively on control and repression of those with mental disorders, at the expense of treatment and rehabilitation. The state has been given increased powers to control the lives and movements of people diagnosed with a mental disorder, without relying on sound evidence or having appropriate resources for treatment. The marginalization is compounded if a mentally disordered person has violated a law. 37 references