Having survived those many years in a classroom with
(Mentally retarded" "Learning Disabled" "Emotionally disturbed" and
a few other un-named categories, I'm glad to see the Great People have finally seen the light.
Although we were forced to reduce our clients' deficiencies to statistics,
never did I lose sight of the fact that EACH ONE WAS AN INDIVIDUAL!
Each had his own unique set of weaknesses AND STRENGTHS,
and we had as much fun as possible while trying to satisfy THE SYSTEM!
Continuums - we are all on them!
It's about time. Health conditions can cause mental aberrations. A shortcoming of psychologists and even psychiatrists, despite their medical backgrounds, is that they sit back and diagnosis symptoms and that's where they quit -- rarely going for the root cause. A perfect example is stage III and later alcoholics who can present with all kinds of delusional, paranoid, sometimes grandiose, at other times 'floating anxiety' symptoms But rarely will the psychologist ask "how often do you drink?" "How much do you drink daily?" Realizing, of course, that denial is part of the syndrome. Rarely will they have a clinical psychologist run an MMPI and alcoholism sub profile.
Deficiencies of certain vitamins and minerals can lead to depression and other psychological manifestations that supplements can cure better than 2 dozen sessions on a couch. Insufficient thyroid is another that can cause depression.l Lithium's role in manic depression is well known. But there are other vitamins and minerals that any nutritionist can tell an insufficiency of which can cause mental disorders or symptoms.
When the field begins to take a Wholeistic approach, looking at the whole person they have before them, body as well as mind, more disciplines become integrated in diagnosing the person who presents with mental or emotional disorders, then we will see some real breakthroughs in helping the individual in distress.
this is going to open up a whole can of worms for the legal defense teams. as there will be no absolutes it will be childs play for even the most incompetent of prosecutors to blow holes into an insanity arguments since all they have to do is cite the APA position to the jury in opening arguments.
law like mathematics is always black and white. the grey areas are simply for sentencing which means the defendant is already convicted.
jack
The standard for claiming a defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity rests on a definition
that a person is considered insane and is not responsible for criminal conduct if, at the time of the offense, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, he was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts.
This reasoning is, because willful intent is an essential part of most offenses, a person who is insane is not capable of forming such intent. Mental disease or defect does not alone constitute a legal insanity defense. The defendant has the burden of proving the defense of insanity by clear and convincing evidence.
You can't just say, 'I did it cause I'm crazy.' You need to prove you are crazy.
The definition of legal insanity depends on the state you are in - in Georgia, there are two prongs to the insanity defense: appreciating the difference between right and wrong; or if the act is the result of a delusional compulsion, the person's behavior in acting on his delusion, still must be justified: i.e., if a person thought he/she were a police officer, whose duty was to protect the public, and walked around carrying a badge and a gun, saw someone he/she absolutely believed was a serial killer walking down the street, and pulled out his/her gun and shot the "serial killer", he could not be found not guilty by reason of insanity because even if his/her delusion (that the person was a serial killer) were true, his/her actions in pulling a gun and shooting the person were not justified. On the other hand, if the person truly believed that the person walking down the street toward him/her was shooting at him/her, his action in shooting the other person would have been justified, even though a delusion, and he/she could be found not guilty by reason of insanity. Of course, the question for the jury would then be whether they believe the person when he/she testifies that they truly believed their delusion was real ...
I've found that, in the criminal defense field, a lot of people, mental health professionals included, don't understand that mental illness does not automatically equate to insanity, regardless of the severity of the mental illness...
Thanks, Mickchick, for giving us that additional info.
And claiming insanity at the time of the offense doesn't get you totally off the hook anyway. You still end up in a mental facility. You don't get to stroll away scot free.
