NCJ Number
130204
Journal
Journal of Forensic Sciences Volume: 36 Issue: 3 Dated: (May 1991) Pages: 728-735
Date Published
1991
Length
8 pages
Annotation
The recent California Supreme Court case of People versus Clark is summarized with particular focus on the clinical, ethical, and legal implications of this decision regarding the Tarasoff duty.
Abstract
The 1976 California Supreme Court Tarasoff versus Regents of the University of California states that the Tarasoff duty or duty to protect is necessitated when a psychotherapist learns that his or her patient poses a serious danger of foreseeable physical harm to an unidentified person. The discharge of the duty involves appropriate clinical intervention to reduce this degree of danger as well as warning to any persons targeted by this patient. The Clark case concerns a forensic psychologist, who was appointed confidentially at the request of defense counsel under both the attorney-client privilege and the psychotherapist-patient privilege statutes of California. It raises the dilemmas of precedence of Tarasoff duty over confidentiality in a forensic setting, the role of a Miranda-type warning prior to issuing a Tarasoff warning, and application of the Clark ruling to non-forensic (clinical) settings. Possible consequence of Clark is that a Tarasoff warning could be deemed nonconfidential and admissible in a criminal trial. A psychotherapist could therefore be testifying in criminal courts as a prosecution witness. The potential chaos propagated by the Clark decision strongly suggests that the scope of the Tarasoff concept should be limited to a duty to protect potential victims and not to intrude into the criminal trials of our patients. 17 references (Author abstract modified)