I am so behind on reading peoples' journals.
I get into this problem of not being around for a few days and falling behind, and then there are so many to read that I put it off.
Of course, that just makes the problem worse.
Mind you, if I could be normal for a moment, I'd tell myself to not bother catching up, or at least not insist on reading all the entries I've missed, and just limit myself to the current entries.
Or not feel compelled to take an interest in the people here I like, and comment on what they say in their entries.
I mean, occassionally there's an entry that I just have nothing to say about, but that's pretty rare.
Is it bizarre that I wish I could take less of an interest in people?
So I'm going to do my best over the next day or two to catch up.
The conference I went to two weeks ago was great.
Much of it revolved around whether someone with anto-social personality disorder can use that as a defence when they commit a crime.
They pathologically lack morals, so can they use that diagnosis and claim they're not guilty by reason of insanity?
As a question of law, part of the answer depends on the jurisdiction.
In some US states, the answer is an outright 'no', as the law specifies that it can't be used.
Here in Canada, the Supreme Court has ruled that it may be used.
But that doesn't mean it's a sure thing.
You still have to prove that not only is the person a sociopath, but that they were so wrapped up psychologically in committing the crime, that they had no idea what they were doing was wrong, both legally and morally.
There were four speakers at the conference.
Three were American psychologists who specialize in personality disorders and have testified in court as to a persons' diagnosis.
One of them was also a lawyer.
The fourth is a judge in Toronto's mental health court, who also happens to be a clinical psychologist.
Man, talk about over-achievers.
On the first day, they gave presentations, which were all fascinating.
On the second day, they, along with a couple local lawyers, conducted a mock trial.
That was really interesting as well.
The nice thing about the conference was that it went well for me mentally.
I get nervous about these kind of things, especially since I didn't know if I'd know anyone at it.
The first morning (and it started at 8am!! Thank God for lots of free tea), I walked into the room and right there in front of me was a table with people I knew.
Talk about luck.
In fact, with over 200 people attending, they were the only people there I knew.
If it weren't for that, I would have been stuck sitting with strangers, and that would have been almost painful.
Okay, I'll finish here, since I'm trying to keep my entry brief, at least compared to the usual length.
Plus, I have to spend a few hours reading all of your entries now.
I get into this problem of not being around for a few days and falling behind, and then there are so many to read that I put it off.
Of course, that just makes the problem worse.
Mind you, if I could be normal for a moment, I'd tell myself to not bother catching up, or at least not insist on reading all the entries I've missed, and just limit myself to the current entries.
Or not feel compelled to take an interest in the people here I like, and comment on what they say in their entries.
I mean, occassionally there's an entry that I just have nothing to say about, but that's pretty rare.
Is it bizarre that I wish I could take less of an interest in people?
So I'm going to do my best over the next day or two to catch up.
The conference I went to two weeks ago was great.
Much of it revolved around whether someone with anto-social personality disorder can use that as a defence when they commit a crime.
They pathologically lack morals, so can they use that diagnosis and claim they're not guilty by reason of insanity?
As a question of law, part of the answer depends on the jurisdiction.
In some US states, the answer is an outright 'no', as the law specifies that it can't be used.
Here in Canada, the Supreme Court has ruled that it may be used.
But that doesn't mean it's a sure thing.
You still have to prove that not only is the person a sociopath, but that they were so wrapped up psychologically in committing the crime, that they had no idea what they were doing was wrong, both legally and morally.
There were four speakers at the conference.
Three were American psychologists who specialize in personality disorders and have testified in court as to a persons' diagnosis.
One of them was also a lawyer.
The fourth is a judge in Toronto's mental health court, who also happens to be a clinical psychologist.
Man, talk about over-achievers.
On the first day, they gave presentations, which were all fascinating.
On the second day, they, along with a couple local lawyers, conducted a mock trial.
That was really interesting as well.
The nice thing about the conference was that it went well for me mentally.
I get nervous about these kind of things, especially since I didn't know if I'd know anyone at it.
The first morning (and it started at 8am!! Thank God for lots of free tea), I walked into the room and right there in front of me was a table with people I knew.
Talk about luck.
In fact, with over 200 people attending, they were the only people there I knew.
If it weren't for that, I would have been stuck sitting with strangers, and that would have been almost painful.
Okay, I'll finish here, since I'm trying to keep my entry brief, at least compared to the usual length.
Plus, I have to spend a few hours reading all of your entries now.
VIEW 25 of 62 COMMENTS
♥