Journal Published Online: 01 May 1991
Volume 36, Issue 3

The Dilemma in Criminal Court

CODEN: JFSCAS

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.

Author Information

Leong, GB
USC School of Medicine, CA, CA
Eth, S
USC School of Medicine, CA, CA
Silva, JA
USC School of Medicine, CA, CA
Pages: 8
Price: $25.00
Related
Reprints and Permissions
Reprints and copyright permissions can be requested through the
Copyright Clearance Center
Details
Stock #: JFS13082J
ISSN: 0022-1198
DOI: 10.1520/JFS13082J