Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Search research articles

Related Experiment Videos

Psychotherapy as law enforcement.

Paul B Herbert¹

¹University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. paul@mfire.com

The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law

|October 23, 2004

Summary

The Tarasoff duty to warn has led to psychiatric patients being convicted of crimes. This legal doctrine continues to evolve, with recent cases showing new progeny of the original ruling.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

Missouri overrules the United States Supreme Court on capital punishment for minors.

The journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law·2005

Same author

Commentary: Ethics and law at the bar and on the couch.

The journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law·2004

Same author

Assisted outpatient treatment comes to California--or does it?

The journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law·2003

Same author

The duty to warn: a reconsideration and critique.

The journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law·2002

Same author

Tarasoff at twenty-five.

The journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law·2002

Same author

Penry revisited: is execution of a person who has mental retardation cruel and unusual?

The journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law·2002

Area of Science:

Law and Psychiatry
Legal Medicine
Forensic Psychology

Background:

The Tarasoff duty to warn mandates that mental health professionals assess and address potential harm to third parties.
This legal doctrine has expanded significantly since its inception, influencing numerous court decisions.
Recent legal developments indicate a growing trend of psychiatric patients facing criminal convictions due to actions stemming from the duty to warn.

Purpose of the Study:

To analyze the evolution of the Tarasoff duty to warn.
To examine the impact of this legal doctrine on psychiatric patients and legal outcomes.
To highlight emerging trends and progeny of Tarasoff in recent case law.

Main Methods:

Review of landmark legal decisions related to the Tarasoff duty.
Analysis of case law concerning psychiatric patient convictions linked to therapist actions.
Examination of specific recent cases illustrating the doctrine's expansion.

Main Results:

An increasing number of court cases demonstrate psychiatric patients being convicted of crimes based on their therapists' actions.
The Tarasoff duty to warn has generated a line of legal precedents, termed 'progeny,' with evolving interpretations.
A notable recent case involved a psychiatrist's surreptitious evidence-gathering, representing a new manifestation of the Tarasoff doctrine.

Conclusions:

The Tarasoff duty to warn continues to evolve, impacting legal and clinical practice.
The doctrine's expansion has led to complex legal and ethical challenges in mental health.
Ongoing judicial interpretation of Tarasoff necessitates continued attention to its implications for patient rights and public safety.

Related Experiment Videos