Dr. Nishiyama concluded that our father has a litigation capacity in his "expert opinion".
The reason was amazing: because our father is able to hold and eat things…
According to Dr. Nishiyama, not speaking while being able to hold or eat things is not a stupor (mental illness), but silence chosen on our father’s own will; therefore he is able to say things, i.e., has communication ability = litigation capacity.
Dr. Nishiyama replaced the communication ability with the "ability to say things", and concluded that one is able to communicate as long as he has the ability to say things; therefore has litigation capacity.
On the contrary, our father is not even "capable of saying things" in reality. Thus, Dr. Nishiyama considered that our father does not say things even though he is capably of speaking.
We previously wrote about the litigation capacity, which is to be determined according to the defendant's proper understanding on the details of trial as well as the ability to take proper actions.
There is no other case but our father's where the ability to hold or eat things was considered as having litigation ability.
As We write this explanation, We are totally unable to understand the claim made by Dr. Nishiyama.
When the defense attorneys explained this to us, We asked,
"Why is it considered as normal because he is able to hold or eat things? Even babies are able to do these things…."
The defense attorneys lost words. They seem to have been perplexed by the "expert opinion" that was far from making sense.
One of the doctors who wrote an opinion stating that our father is ill and needs medical treatment was a teacher of Dr. Nishiyama. That doctor was angry with Dr. Nishiyama and said, "Did Nishiyama lose pride as a doctor ?"
After Dr. Nishiyama's expert opinion was issued, the defense attorneys submitted to the Court a total of five documents, including three written objections against Dr. Nishiyama's expert opinion written by psychiatrists as well as two supplementary letters containing objections. At this point, six psychiatrists had written opinions, etc.
However, opinions written by psychiatrists did not mean anything to the Court that had already made this unshakable conclusion prior to the "expert opinion".
No comments:
Post a Comment