</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
alexandra_k said:
When people have offended we can lock them up in jail against their will.
When people haven't yet offended but we think they are likely to offend we can diagnose them with something and lock them up in a mental institution against their will.

Some people argue that psychiatry (when used to involountarily commit) is a form of social control that picks up where law leaves off. Whereas the legal aspect relies on their HAVING OFFENDED ALREADY the psychiatric aspect relies on clinical judgement about the liklihood of FUTURE OFFENDING.

but its ok because people in the latter group are 'defective'.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

Exactly. We're not supposed to be able to be put in jail, punished or whatever until we've actually committed a crime or caused harm, but if a psychologist or psychiatrist says you have a mental illness, they may be able to put you away, whether you like it or not, and force you to take medication, even though these medications have side effects and do have serious risks. (Even if the risks are low, I feel each individual should have the right to decide if s/he wants to take those risks.)

Most of psychology is guesswork. You tell them, or someone else tells them, of your behavior, worries, etc., and they give you a diagnosis. Yes, most of these guesses are likely correct, but not always. Behavior can have many causes, and even if you have a group of behaviors that fit a certain mental disorder diagnosis, there may be another reason for it. You can say the same of physical illness, but at least there, there's more evidence than just descriptions to go by. And we know that mental illness is often (if not always) caused by physical problems, so it seems there should be more physical examination in diagnosing mental illness.