Week 7 Flashcards
Loftus & Guyer (2002)
“Who abused Jane Doe? The Hazards of the Single Case History”
Loftus
- hired PI
- reviewed court records
- interviewed Jane’s mother & foster mother
Did not reveal Jane Doe’s name
-questioned validity of abuse claims (no substantial medical evidence to support)
No charges filed on mother, lost visitation
Brother denies allegations
Mother claimed father had issues
Taus v. Loftus et al.
JD sued Loftus, Univ. of Wash, and journal
JD ordered to PAY other side’s lit. costs (~$250,000)
Maire Elise West
1990- Diagnosed Bipolar disorder (manic-depressive)
1990-2000 six arrests, 19 hospitalizations
- 1993 drove into Huntington Beach Pier (Nazis)
- 1995 attacked teacher (messiah and slavery)
- March, 2000 arrested for trespassing
- Aug. 31, 2000 “mission” -> bagel shop -> ran over man
2004- People v. Marie Elise West (convicted 2nd degree murder)
2006- retrial (NGRI -> state mental hospital)
Individual Rights vs. Public Safety
If client:
Danger to self or others
-civil commitment (place under watch; temporary)
Danger to others
-tarasoff warning (very specific circumstances)
Historical Treatments
Trephiniation
-boring holes in skill to remove evil forces
Exorcism
-starving, whipping, beating someone who is “possessed” by evil spirits
Bloodletting, purging, frightening patients with threats of death, the “tranquilizer” chair
-assumed fear would counteract the overexcitement responsible for behavior
Insane Asylums (even for those who didn’t fit norm)
Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (1976)
Prior to, mentally ill could be INVOLUNTARILY and INDEFINITELY committed whenever the state believed needed treatment
Section 5150
As result of mental disorder, is a danger to others, or to themselves
Max 72-hour hold for treatment and evaluation
AKA LPS hold
LPS Holds
MUST release if no significant evidence
section - duration 5150 ---- 72 hour 5250 ---- 14-day 5260 ---- Additional 14-day 5270 ---- 30-day
Short-Doyle Act
Governing the development of community-based treatment programs
INITIALLY funded 90% state and 10% counties
-intended to replace state mental institutions
1991
-state trans funding reap. to counties
-> increase in # homeless who are seriously mentally ill
Laura’s Law
Assembly Bill 1421
Assisted Outpatient Treatment Demo Project Act of 2002
- named after mental health worker who was killed by mentally ill who refused treatment
- assisted outpatient treatment program (CA)
- > may include forced mental treatment
- court ordered
- failure to comply –> 5150 Hold
Requirements:
- adult 18+
- suffering from mental illness
- person unlikely to survive safely w/o supervision
- history of lack of compliance w/ treatment
- person’s condition is “sub. deteriorating”
- treat. deemed nec.; otherwise grave danger of serious harm to self or others
Tarasoff v. Regents of UC, et al.
August, 1969
- Poddar told therapist (Moore) he intended to kill Tarasoff
- therapist notified supervisor and campus police who detained Poddar, then released him
Oct. 26, 1969
Poddar killed Tarasoff
Tarasoff parents sued
et al.
- therapist
- supervisor
- officers who detained
- officers who received therapist’s oral communication
- chief who received therapist’s letter
APA Amicus Brief
problem that NEGLIGENT to warn, not predict
Ruling:
Defense argued
-Poddar detained (LPS hold)
-Informing T would violate confidentiality
-public employees should be immune to liability (CA Tort Claims Act 1963)
Court REJECTED all arguments
Tarasoff Ruling
Defense argued
- Poddar detained (LPS hold)
- Informing T would violate confidentiality
- public employees should be immune to liability (CA Tort Claims Act 1963)
Court REJECTED all arguments
Limits to confidentiality
-mental health prof. have duty to patient AND those specifically threatened by patient
Tatasoff Warning (duty to warn)
- notify individual who is in danger from a client
- -> identifiability
- -> forgeability of harm
- -> prediction of violence
Tatasoff Warning
Duty to warn
- notify individual who is in danger from a client
- -> identifiability (specific person)
- -> forgeability of harm
- -> prediction of violence
Rowland v. Christian
FORSEEABILITY OF HARM
R visited C C didn't tell R about bad sink -R used bathroom -R injured self -R sued C
Ruled
- forseeability of harm
- -> duty to warn
Garner v. Stone
PREDICTION OF VIOLENCE
G told S he had dreams of killing Captain
S referred G to someone else, who referred him to another, G canceled his apt
S issued Tarasoff warning
G FIRED
G sued S, and won
When to issue Tarasoff warning
Makes specific threat to identifiable person
–> issue Tarasoff warning
ID
- kill everyone vs. kill Bob
Forseeability
- if forseeability of harm (details, etc.), you have DUTY to WARN
- ->Rowland v. Christian
Prediction of violence
- ppl say things don’t mean all time, HISTORY BASED
- ->Garner v. Stone
Pros and Cons of Issuing Tarasoff Warning
Issue
- threatened able to protect
- violent offender is caught
- NOT actually violent -> sued
Not Issue
- person not actually violent or dangerous
- stay in therapy, work out issues
- if DANGEROUS and injure or worse -> sued
People v. Biernbaum (2000)
B
-missing wife
No body found
Case reopened after 12 yrs
-argued body dumped ocean
-evidence he alt. flight records
Pros sought to open psych records
- b/c issued Tarasoff warning
- argued client-therapist priv. broken
- -> only CLIENT can waive priv. (court agreed)
B convicted w/o this evidence
Ewing v. Goldstein (2004)
Client father called therapist
-thought son kill ex’s new bf
No Tarasoff warning issued
Son killed ex’s new bf and committed suicide
Bf’s family sued therapist
APA- would increase liability and undermine practice (court REJECTED)
CA Supreme Court
-psyc CAN use info provided by 3rd parties to issue Tarasoff warning IF info deemed credible
Competency to Stand Trial (CST)
PRESENT abilities
-defendant’s capacity to function meaningfully and knowingly in a legal proceeding
Defendant may be mentally ill or developmentally delayed but STILL competent and able to stand trial
Dusky v. US (1960)
-ability to consult w/ attorney & rational and factual understanding of proceedings
Incompetence involves DEFICIENCY in 1+ abilities
- understanding legal proceedings
- communicating w/ attorney
- appreciating their role in the proceedings
- making legally relevant decisions
Determine by use of standardized instruments
Insanity Defense (NGRI)
Refers to psych state at TIME OF CRIME
B/c client’s mental disorder, not LEGALLY resp.
Asses NGRI:
McNaugten Rule (25 states, inc. CA)
-Cog motivation
Durham Rule (NH) -mental disease or defect
Brawner/ALI Guidelines (20 states)
-Cog component and volitional component
NGRI Defense prohibited (Idaho, Kansas, Mt, Utah)
- mental disease/defect alone, not defense
- defense must prove insanity
Incompetent defendants
~5% of felony defendants are evaluated for CST each year (~70% found CST)
Common characteristics
- history of mental illness (schizophrenia, bipolar, retardation)
- history of drug abuse
- socially isolated, unmarried, unemployed
- poorly educated and below avg intelligence
IST:
Not serious crime, charges dropped
-seek treatment (changes can be refiled if regain comp)
Def. hospitalized to be treated for restoration of comp.
If comp CANNOT be restored, committed to mental hospital
How can comp. be restored?
Def can be forced to take med to become CST
Treatment MUST be:
- med appropriate
- sub. unlikely to have side effects that may undermine trial’s fairness
Grisso et al. (2003)
30% youth (11-13) showed impairments
- LESS capable of making legal judgements
- MORE likely confess to crimes
- MORE likely accept plea bargains
By 16-17, show rates of comp similar to young adults (18-24, frontal lobe not fully devel. yet)
Lionel Tate
“Wrestling” murder of 6 yr
Convicted at 13 after accepting plea (youngest in US to receive life w/o parole)
Overturned after 3 years b/c comp was NOT adequately eval before trial
Retried
1 year house arrest, 10 probation
Malingering & CST
Malingering
-INTENTIONALLY faking mental illness or disability (e.g., amnesia)
Tests used evaluate malingering
- structured interview of reported symptoms (SIRS)
- -> wide range of symp. unlikely to be true even for severely disordered
- -> eval. consistency in response
No clear benefits (may end up serving MORE time)
People v. Kaczynski
Unabomber (string of bombings 1978-1995)
- killed 3
- injured 29
Arrested after “manifesto” in papers 1996
K wanted to defend self and refused public defense attorneys
Refused to go along w/ NGRI defense
[comp to do these things?]
Eventually, plea
- K plead guilty
- death penalty taken off table
- life prison, no poss. parole
Daniel McNaughten
1843
-delusional, stalked PM, killed believed PM
NGRI
Public furious -> demand tougher test of insanity
McNaughton Rule -defect of reason from disease of mind -not know nature & quality of act OR -not know it was wrong
->became standard in GB and US
Irresistible Impulse Test
For ind. knew act wrong, lacked CAPACITY to avoid performing it
APA- not clear to determine
prop. solution “police at the elbow test”
Monte Durhan
In and out of hospital much of adult life
Tried for burglary 1951
- IST -> 16 months, CST
- convicted
- appealed twice
- basis: McNaughton rule “based on entirely obsolete and misleading conception of nature of sanity”
Durhan Rule
-not criminally resp. if unlawful act product of mental disease or mental defect
- issues
- > too much influence from psych.
- > power taken from jury in determining guilt
- > too vague (alcoholics? drug users?)
Brawner (ALI) Rule
Def is NOT criminally resp. if
-at time, as result of mental disease/defect, lack sub. capacity to APPRECIATE wrongfulness or to CONFORM conduct to req. of law
Diff between Brawner and McNaughten
Use term “appreciate”
-incorp. emotional as well as cog. determinants of criminal actions
Substantial capacity
-NOT req. offender exhibit total lack of appreciation, but ONLY lack “substantial capacity”
Cog. and volitional elements
-def.’s ability to control actions a suff. criterion by self for insanity
How often is NGRI used?
1981
- 102 out of 22,102 used NGRI defense
- successful ONCE
Peaked 1981, then decrease
- John Hickley attempted assassination of Pres
- -> found NGRI
- —-> Congress pissed! -> Insanity Defense Reform Act
Insanity Defense Reform Act (1984)
“Unable to appreciate nature & qual. of wrongfulness. Mental disease/defect NOT otherwise constitute defense”
-eliminated volitional in Brawner
Prohib. experts from giving ‘ultimate opinion’
-> up to jury
Placed burden of proof on defense
-prev. on pros. to prove sanity!
Two changes made after political assassination attempts
McNaughten
Insanity Defense Reform Act
