Therefore, the concept of their representation is of paramount importance throughout the judicial proceedings. The concept of representation was evident in the case of defendant X, as he was characterized as a criminal both verbally and physically. Firstly, X was verbally characterized as “unfit for trial”, unable to communicate, and “incoherent”. Furthermore, the expert intervener (a psychiatrist) declared that meeting with X more than once would be of no purpose, seeing that his condition had such poor prognosis. Lastly, it was stated that X was unaware of his charges; naturally rejecting them. Such remarks are incredibly influential to X’s characterization, because of the law’s ability to effectively shape one’s identity. Secondly, X was physically represented as an outsider from society, as he was isolated from the rest of the court through a glass box. This segregation was further noticed when the defendant requested to testify on the stand, but was prohibited from doing so potentially due to his history of aggressiveness on the stand. Surely, this verbal and physical representation is unintentional, as it is merely follows court procedure. The verbal remarks are meant to give the court a better understanding of X’s mental state, so that an appropriate treatment plan can be developed. As far as his isolation goes, it is conducive to public safety. However, in a mental health court the verbal and physical representation of X further contributes to his essentialization but with respects to his mental condition rather than his criminal offences. Overall, the court indirectly labels X as an outsider from society, promoting the idea of ostracization. By only identifying X through his mental condition, we presume that X is the “kind of person” who is guilty of engaging in transgressive acts, negating the