{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.012779552715654952, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0010649627263045794, 'mean_word_length': 4.987261146496815, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Capacity to stand trial: pitfalls of legal interpretation.

Legally, the concept of fitness to stand trial is fixed and absolute. Psychiatrists view fitness as a homeostatic functional capacity. The Ontario Court of Appeal recently set a precedent (Queen versus Taylor) for a standard of fitness to stand trial by interpreting the criteria for unfitness as defined in terms of Section 2 of the Criminal Code. They held that only a factual understanding of these criteria is required by the courts. A person suffering from acute psychotic symptoms with delusions which relate to the subject matter of the trial, who act contrary to their best interests and who are disruptive in their behaviour to the orderly flow of the trial may still fulfill the criteria for fitness to stand trial. The writer illustrates some important implications of this decision and suggests recommendations to current legal interpretations of a clinical capacity.