Is it reasonable to question one's sanity?

What is the definition of sanity? How can I prove someone healthy or crazy?

Ben Brocka makes a lot of fine points. Madness is one legal Definition, and what constitutes insanity, varies from state to state, even from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. What makes quantifying mental health so difficult is the fact that in a forensic setting it is so often at the discretion of a peer jury or the court to accept or reject insanity as an explanation for a particular case of behavior. Lay people (people who are not mental health professionals) bring her personal Understanding and its definition of insanity in the determination process, at least minimally at the unconscious level, and these are strong prejudices on which an unclouded, comprehensive determination of sanity or lack thereof can be based.

The institution of reason almost always focuses on this general question: Does the individual have understood at the time he committed a crime, that what he / she was doing was wrong in law? This may seem simple and obvious, but it is not.

They wanted to know what specific tests or assessment criteria can be used to determine mental health. I can only speak from a forensic point of view based on my experience in my state.

Determining mental health almost always begins with a comprehensive psychological or psychiatric assessment. At this level, the presence of the underlying criteria of Axis I - mental illness, substance use disorders, learning disorders - and Axis II - typically personality and intellectual / learning symptoms (and note that learning disorders and intellectual dysfunction are not the same) - become disorders detected.

During this process, a person's GAF (General Assessment of Functioning) is determined. This score is used as a general indicator of a person's ability to function in society and maintain self-efficacy. The lower the score, the lower a person's skills are. Note, however, that this no Assessment of intelligence is.

Intelligence tests can be part of the process of determining mental health. Frequently used tests are the Woodcock-Johnson, the Weschler (adult and child version) and the Stanford-Binet.

A substance abuse assessment is often made at this point. There are innumerable test tools for drug abuse assessment, and the criteria examined from a forensic point of view focus less on the individual than on community safety.

Psychological assessment is similar to psychological tests, but usually involves a more comprehensive assessment of the individual. Psychological evaluation is a process , the involves integrating information from multiple sources , e.g. B. Tests of normal and abnormal personality, tests of ability or intelligence, tests of interests or attitudes, and information from face-to-face interviews. Collateral information is also collected about personal, professional or medical history, e.g. B. from records or from interviews with parents, spouses, teachers or previous therapists or doctors. A psychological test is one of the data sources used as part of the assessment process. More than one test is usually used. * (CITATION)

Before diagnosing a mental disorder, doctors need to investigate the issues, also called abnormalities, within mental disorders. The most important topics are: deviation, distress, malfunction and danger. These subjects are known as 4 Ds which define abnormalities. ( QUOTE )

Other specific tests used may include the MMPI or the MMPI-II, the PCL-R (Hare). How can psychology be measured objectively? First, I think it's important to understand that a thorough psychological assessment is like taking a snapshot of the bigger picture. You can't measure a person's characteristics like a rock, but the testing tools are highly specialized and should take into account a person's willingness to accurately and honestly report their symptoms and history (which is different from the inability differs to self-determination) report due to mental illness or other factor). In other words, psychological and forensic tests have “lie scales” that give the examiner a point of comparison - how open is the topic to the bigger picture, which is made up of not only test results and information but also side information?

It is extraordinary difficult to successfully falsify the trained eye. For example, I had a person under my supervision who for years had successfully avoided the perpetrator's responsibility for claiming he was illiterate. He made the mistake of emptying his pockets on my desk; Among his items was a lotto card - it was a crossword puzzle lotto card that a person had to write the words on (as opposed to scratching out the letters from a preprinted card). A person who is not truly mentally ill, learning disabled, or intellectually disabled cannot keep up the trick continuously because of them don't know what it really feels like to have one of these conditions and eventually make a mistake.