The Tarasoff dilemma in criminal court

G. B. Leong, Spencer Eth, J. A. Silva

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The duty to protect, or Tarasoff duty, has been conceptualized as arising solely in the context of a clinical setting. A recent California Supreme Court ruling in People v. Clark adds legal, clinical, and ethical dilemmas to the oftentimes contentious Tarasoff issue. Though the Tarasoff issue is but a minor legal point in Clark, a possible consequence of Clark is that a Tarasoff warning could be deemed nonconfidential and admissible in a criminal trial. Psychotherapists could therefore be testifying in criminal courts as prosecution witnesses. While the possibility of a chilling effect on patients' disclosure of violent ideation in the context of psychotherapy first caused apprehension after the California Supreme Court's 1976 decision in Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, this same Court's ruling in People v. Clark some 14 years later may ensure that this fear finally becomes realized.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)728-735
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Forensic Sciences
Volume36
Issue number3
StatePublished - Dec 1 1991
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Psychotherapy
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Decisions
psychotherapist
Disclosure
court decision
prosecution
psychotherapy
witness
Fear
anxiety

Keywords

  • confidentiality
  • dangerousness
  • doctor-patient privilege
  • duty to protect
  • ethics
  • jurisprudence
  • privacy
  • privilege
  • psychiatry
  • psychotherap y
  • testimony

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine (miscellaneous)
  • Law

Cite this

Leong, G. B., Eth, S., & Silva, J. A. (1991). The Tarasoff dilemma in criminal court. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 36(3), 728-735.

The Tarasoff dilemma in criminal court. / Leong, G. B.; Eth, Spencer; Silva, J. A.

In: Journal of Forensic Sciences, Vol. 36, No. 3, 01.12.1991, p. 728-735.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Leong, GB, Eth, S & Silva, JA 1991, 'The Tarasoff dilemma in criminal court', Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 728-735.
Leong GB, Eth S, Silva JA. The Tarasoff dilemma in criminal court. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 1991 Dec 1;36(3):728-735.
Leong, G. B. ; Eth, Spencer ; Silva, J. A. / The Tarasoff dilemma in criminal court. In: Journal of Forensic Sciences. 1991 ; Vol. 36, No. 3. pp. 728-735.
@article{ff7fcd01e5c94cd2b4c00918d9d90172,
title = "The Tarasoff dilemma in criminal court",
abstract = "The duty to protect, or Tarasoff duty, has been conceptualized as arising solely in the context of a clinical setting. A recent California Supreme Court ruling in People v. Clark adds legal, clinical, and ethical dilemmas to the oftentimes contentious Tarasoff issue. Though the Tarasoff issue is but a minor legal point in Clark, a possible consequence of Clark is that a Tarasoff warning could be deemed nonconfidential and admissible in a criminal trial. Psychotherapists could therefore be testifying in criminal courts as prosecution witnesses. While the possibility of a chilling effect on patients' disclosure of violent ideation in the context of psychotherapy first caused apprehension after the California Supreme Court's 1976 decision in Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, this same Court's ruling in People v. Clark some 14 years later may ensure that this fear finally becomes realized.",
keywords = "confidentiality, dangerousness, doctor-patient privilege, duty to protect, ethics, jurisprudence, privacy, privilege, psychiatry, psychotherap y, testimony",
author = "Leong, {G. B.} and Spencer Eth and Silva, {J. A.}",
year = "1991",
month = "12",
day = "1",
language = "English",
volume = "36",
pages = "728--735",
journal = "Journal of Forensic Sciences",
issn = "0022-1198",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Tarasoff dilemma in criminal court

AU - Leong, G. B.

AU - Eth, Spencer

AU - Silva, J. A.

PY - 1991/12/1

Y1 - 1991/12/1

N2 - The duty to protect, or Tarasoff duty, has been conceptualized as arising solely in the context of a clinical setting. A recent California Supreme Court ruling in People v. Clark adds legal, clinical, and ethical dilemmas to the oftentimes contentious Tarasoff issue. Though the Tarasoff issue is but a minor legal point in Clark, a possible consequence of Clark is that a Tarasoff warning could be deemed nonconfidential and admissible in a criminal trial. Psychotherapists could therefore be testifying in criminal courts as prosecution witnesses. While the possibility of a chilling effect on patients' disclosure of violent ideation in the context of psychotherapy first caused apprehension after the California Supreme Court's 1976 decision in Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, this same Court's ruling in People v. Clark some 14 years later may ensure that this fear finally becomes realized.

AB - The duty to protect, or Tarasoff duty, has been conceptualized as arising solely in the context of a clinical setting. A recent California Supreme Court ruling in People v. Clark adds legal, clinical, and ethical dilemmas to the oftentimes contentious Tarasoff issue. Though the Tarasoff issue is but a minor legal point in Clark, a possible consequence of Clark is that a Tarasoff warning could be deemed nonconfidential and admissible in a criminal trial. Psychotherapists could therefore be testifying in criminal courts as prosecution witnesses. While the possibility of a chilling effect on patients' disclosure of violent ideation in the context of psychotherapy first caused apprehension after the California Supreme Court's 1976 decision in Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, this same Court's ruling in People v. Clark some 14 years later may ensure that this fear finally becomes realized.

KW - confidentiality

KW - dangerousness

KW - doctor-patient privilege

KW - duty to protect

KW - ethics

KW - jurisprudence

KW - privacy

KW - privilege

KW - psychiatry

KW - psychotherap y

KW - testimony

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0026351429&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0026351429&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 1856640

AN - SCOPUS:0026351429

VL - 36

SP - 728

EP - 735

JO - Journal of Forensic Sciences

JF - Journal of Forensic Sciences

SN - 0022-1198

IS - 3

ER -