Jeralyn: "Dr. Vorster has a PH.d in forensic psychiatry and has worked at the hospital for the criminally insane. She's a professor. Clearly, she knows the difference between an anxiety disorder and mental illness."

... then she'd undoubtedly know that any responsible person seeking to enlighten the general public about the true nature of mental illness should not consciously seek to invoke nightmarish images of institutionalized patients from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest as a differential between its lesser and more acute forms. Nor should the term itself lead one to first envision those persons suffering from suicidal tendencies, clinical depression, schizophrenia or psycho-/sociopathy, to the near-exclusion of others who suffer from less ominous or debilitative forms of mental disorders.

In all honesty, we really need to overcome our own latent and ingrained prejudices about what exactly constitutes and causes mental illness, which has served only to marginalize those persons who actually suffer from one or more of its various incarnations. Like other illnesses such as cancer, mental illness comes in varying types and degrees, can exist in both latent and active stages, and can be caused and induced by organic and non-organic factors alike.

According to the National Institute for Mental Health, which in fact classifies anxiety disorders as one form of mental illness, such disorders break down into five fairly distinctive types -- generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), panic disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and social phobias.

In some extreme cases, an anxiety disorder can manifest itself in an individual's aggressive and / or violent behavior toward others, or it can lead to a debilitating mental breakdown in which one becomes emotionally withdrawn and socially dysfunctional. But advances in modern medicine have been such that most persons who are afflicted with such disorders can and do cope effectively with their illness on a daily basis, and can otherwise lead contented and productive lives with the proper medical and / or therapeutic regimen.

Are there any medical records that actually support the defense counsel's contention, that is, has Oscar Pistorious been formally diagnosed by a psychiatrist as suffering from an acute form of anxiety disorder? If so, and if the level of affliction which the defense counsel is now claiming for the defendant led Mr. Pistorious to engage in documented instances of excessive gunplay prior to the shooting of Ms. Steenkamp, one is left to wonder why he was ever allowed by his own family (never mind South African authorities) to possess guns in the first place.

The vulnerability issue goes to the culpable homicide charge. The test is what a reasonable person is Oscar's situation would do under the same circumstances.>

Personally speaking, I have a daughter roughly Reeva's age. If (God forbid) my daughter was the victim in a case identical to this one I would want, no, I would demand, justice be done.

And, by "Justice," I mean:

If it was proven, to my satisfaction, and, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it was a deliberate act, there's no punishment that would satisfy me. But, I know that's just a father talking here.

* Making the application on behalf of the state, prosecutor Gerrie Nel said the court had no choice but to refer Pistorius:

If there is a reasonable possibility that some mental illness or disorder played a part, the court must refer.

* But Nel said the state did not and will not make the case that Pistorius was mentally ill. The court is obliged to "act decisively" because of the evidence of the defence's own psychiatrist, Dr Merryll Vorster, who has diagnosed him with generalised anxiety disorder, which might have affected his actions on the night he shot Reeva Steenkamp. If the court chooses not to refer, it could have a bearing on a future appeal.

SNIP

State and defence clashed over interpretation of case law concerning referrals, with [defense counsel] Roux accusing the prosecution of failing to understand the cases cited. [Prosecutor]Nel countered that he was counsel in one of them. "I lost."

On Wednesday the judge, Thokozile Masipa, said the court was "ill-equipped" to assess Vorster's diagnosis and therefore Pistorius should be sent for a period of evaluation. She said it was important to assess the defendant's state of mind because of the possibility raised by the prosecution that Pistorius might argue he was not criminally responsible as a result of his anxiety disorder.

"The accused may not have raised the issue that he was not criminally responsible at the time of the incident in so many words, but evidence led on his behalf clearly raised the issue and cannot be ignored," the judge said.

The judge's words from live feed:

"It is clear that counsel for the state was correct when he said the court has no discretion."

SNIP

"The trigger to the application was the evidence of Dr Merryll Vorster called on behalf of the accused."

SNIP

"I do not agree that there are no allegations ... The accused may not have raised the issue that he was not criminally responsible but evidence raised on his behalf clearly raise the issue and cannot be ignored."

In my view, the prosecutor is trying to buy time to save his losing case.

What this looks like to me is that the defense team is throwing a Hail Mary pass to save the client and they are proving it by putting this witness on the stand with this line of testimony. It completely smacks of desperation, since they cannot possibly overcome OP's completely unbelievable testimony. While OP may have an anxiety disorder and feels unsafe, his behavior as to how he lived his life before this does not jive with that conculsion.  He traveled all over the world to compete (including to the Olympics, where he stayed in the Olympic Village), coming in contact with literally hundreds of thousands of strange people, and yet he never had to have a gun in any of those places.  

(He did however, feel the need to play with a gun in a restaurant and it accidentally went off).

In my view, the prosecutor is trying to buy time to save his losing case.

"Vorster's testimony raised the question of whether Pistorius was now claiming "diminished responsibility" for the shooting, Nel said, because of a possible mental illness. Nel also asked the psychiatrist if someone who was suffering from such an anxiety disorder, and had access to guns, would be a danger to society. Vorster said the person would, indeed, be a danger."

LINK To Article

I'm just trying to get a clarification regarding the defense's own expert witness, and, her testimony that his condition, "would, indeed, [make him] be a danger [to society]."

It really is confusing. It sounds like the defense is trying to thread a very fine needle.

O.P. is diagnosed as suffering from "anxiety disorder," but, is not mentally ill. A person suffering from this disorder "would, indeed be a danger to society," and, Oscar knew right from wrong.

So, the defense is saying that Oscar is not sick, but, is suffering from a condition that makes him a danger to society, so, that when he kills his girlfriend, even though he knows right from wrong, he should be found not guilty of all charges.

Nel said under South Africa's Criminal Procedure Act, if there was an allegation an accused might suffer from mental disorder that diminished his responsibility, the court must send him for psychiatric evaluation.

"If the diagnosis has been made, the court doesn't have an option. The accused shall be referred" for psychiatric assessment, Nel said.

One legal expert, law professor James Grant, agreed, saying on Twitter that under South African law, the court must refer a person for psychiatric assessment if an allegation is made to the court that a person suffered a psychiatric disorder that led to diminished responsibility - or if it just appeared to the court that an accused may have diminished responsibility because of a mental disorder. link