I did want to mention that the new DSM (and even the current one) does cover situations such as yours. I understand the reluctance to call duress (whether that be social, emotional, etc) "mental illness" and surely an argument can be made that it is not, however in some ways it is.

I think the real point here is that there are forms of therapies that can help someone through these tough times. Of course that takes finding the right psychologist; which takes effort.

Anyways, the main reason I commented was just to say that "mental illness" doesn't necessarily mean you are crazy or have a chemical imbalance. It is a much broader term. The opening paragraph on the wiki page for mental illness describes it well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_disorder

I 100% agree with this in terms of its accuracy in describing the symptoms. And I do not think mental illness should be stigmatized any more than other illnesses should be (which is not at all).

The key though is that once mental illness occurs, rationality goes out the window. To a large extent causality goes out the window. You can't persuade a clinically depressed person to cheer up using a rational argument, the brain chemistry is going to overrule your rationality.

So my intent in my initial comment was to draw a distinction between Aaron's explainable behavior (that which was derived from his rational process) and his unexplainable behavior (that which was derived from his brain chemistry getting out of whack and his conclusion that taking his own life was a good decision).

I realize my sentiment ignores the possibility that the suicide was a direct and rational response to the prosecutors' tactics.