Commentary: The Lucid Interval-Coping with Unscientific Terminology.

The authors agree with Shulman et al. in their assertion that the term "lucid interval" does not describe what is now known to occur in the fluctuating mental status of some demented individuals. Therefore, its use by the courts to determine competency in such persons can result in an unjust outcome. However, we believe such criticism as Shulman and his coauthors levied at the legal profession should be broadened to consider antiquated and nonscientific terminology in our own field of psychiatry.

Commentary: mentally disordered offenders in prison--old problems that still require solutions.

We commend Simpson et al. for addressing an important topic: the care and treatment of prisoners with serious mental illness. We welcome the authors' conclusions, but we identify some problems that can often frustrate attempts to improve services to this group.

Commentary: personality disorder and diminished responsibility--the significance of priorities and objectives.

Professor Landy Sparr's paper systematically examines issues and anomalies of courtroom practice in relation to offenders who are considered to have a personality disorder. The in-depth description of a recent case from the International War Crimes Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia forms the basis of the paper. As an international forum, the Tribunal illustrates clearly the different practices and interpretations in various jurisdictions. Sparr provides much detail about the machinations of the Tribunal, leading to speculation about the principles that underlie the complex legislation as it is applied in different countries. Despite the considerable differences in mental health systems among different countries, there are probably shared themes and trends that influence the practice of forensic psychiatry.