In a courtroom, a psychiatrist is called in to give an opinion on a person suffering from schizophrenia. Is that indiviual fit to stand trial or not? Was that person of sound mind’ when the crime, currently being investigated, was committed?
Now tell me, does this make any sense? To me it is problematic. If that individual was not taking his medication regularly, the attending psychiatrist would have recommended medication which takes weeks to kick in. So, while he was being cross questioned in a court of law, he would probably not have been speaking logically. If he had already been taking medication, the ‘incident’ might not have occurred.
It is tough to diagnose normal (if there is such a thing) It is very difficult to distinguish whether a person is suffering from a mental illness so fast, because mental health conditions are diagnosed and treated based on signs and symptoms mainly – as well as how much the condition affects the daily life of the person in question. Signs and symptoms can affect that person’s behavior, his feelings and thinking … for example; he/she might believe that television is controlling his/her mind. Another sign is thoughts of suicide; a well-balanced person simply does not think that way.
So, to cut a very long story short, will the individual be getting a fair trial?