The public must be protected. But the rights of the accused must be observed. That is always a difficult balancing act. Where do we draw the line when the accused aren't even competent to stand trial, making it impossible to officially determine their guilt or innocence? Leave them mostly unsupervised? Or give them what amounts to a life sentence?

That is the dilemma faced by the Indiana Court of Appeals as it considers the cases of Steven Thomas and Derrick Dausman, both of whom face child-molestation charges. The two have been placed indefinitely in the Logansport State Hospital. The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana wants them placed in a group home or other community-based care. The state argues the men are too dangerous for such settings.

Thomas is accused of biting a 3-year-old boy on the genitals. Dausman was charged with having a 13-year-old boy perform oral sex on him.

Judges in both cases ruled the men are incompetent to stand trial because they lack the mental capacity to understand the proceedings against them. Thomas has the emotional and cognitive skills of a 5- or 6-year-old, according to court records. Dausman has an IQ in the low to mid-50s; 70 is usually considered the threshold of retardation.

The state Family and Social Services Administration, which decides placement in such cases, assigned teams of doctors and social workers to both men with the goal of raising their comprehension skills to the point where they could stand trial.

The FSSA says the men are “progressing toward competency.” But two psychiatrists cited by the ACLU say it's doubtful either will be competent enough.

There are plenty of technical questions here. Is the FSSA bound by strict guidelines, for example, or does it have a lot of discretion? But the moral issues are the ones that deserve focus.

In a case such as this, Indiana is neither the worst state for public safety nor the worst for individual rights. Texas, for example, makes no special provisions - people like Thomas and Dausman would get either freedom or prison, likely the latter. But in Florida, they'd likely be released to completely unsupervised settings if found incompetent to stand trial.

Perhaps the state hospital isn't the best setting for the two men. But if they are released into some kind of community setting, it is critical to understand how much supervision and control they would be subjected to.

The ACLU is concerned mostly with the rights of the accused. But the appeals court has to start with public safety as its primary concern.