Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacetrucker
Thought Disorders:
What is the Definition of a Thought Disorder under the Criminal Justice System?
Scenario:
Because you have looked at me through your Monitor Sideways ( Circumstance)
I am now taking offence to that ( Obvious Thought Disorder? ) so I am now going to track you down and cave you head in? ( Acting on my Thought Disorder)
On the presumption I have ended up acting on my Thought / Disorder ? which I can only presume should be a Thought Disorder.
1. Should this be treated as a Health Issue, Re, Treating the Circumstancial Thought Disorder?
2. Or is this an Criminal issue, which there for follows Punishment?
3. As for a Psychoses Thought Disorder is based on an " Alleged" Chemical Imbalance, or is it also possible this is Circumstancial too??
Therefor is usually treated as a Health Issue, had a offence been committed?
4. Why is not Circumstancial Thought Disorders any different to that of a Psychoses a Thought Disorder, which in turn, Can be treated By the Medical Profession?
By order of Dr / Jack of All, But None of Any, President of the Planet  |
Hi,
The criminal justice system has a legal finding of not guilty by reason of insanity. This means that a jury believes that the defendant was unable to determine right from wrong at the moment the crime was committed.
I believe your other questions have to do with awareness. I would divide thought disorders by whether the person has an awareness that their thoughts are disordered or not.
Thus if something makes you upset, and you're aware that you're upset, then you go "cave you [sic] head in," and you're aware that this action will cause harm to the person it would be a thought disorder, but it would not be psychosis.
Again, the delineation would be based on whether the person had an
awareness that their thoughts were disordered.
I hope this helps.