LIBRARY
Pre-Law: Psychology and the Law
Psychology and law are closely connected fields that both focus on understanding people’s behavior, but in different ways. Psychology looks at how the mind works and why people behave the way they do, while law provides the rules to ensure fairness and justice in society. When psychology and law come together, it helps us better understand how mental health can impact a person’s actions and decisions in legal situations. For example, understanding if someone is mentally fit to stand trial or if they are capable of understanding the consequences of their actions can be influenced by psychology. This is especially important when dealing with cases that involve mental illness, criminal responsibility, or competency to stand trial.
One important case that shows the link between psychology and law is M'Naghten's Case (1843). This case is a key moment in both fields because it set the standard for how the law handles people who claim mental illness as a defense. The case introduced the M'Naghten Rule, which says that a person cannot be held responsible for a crime if, because of their mental illness, they didn’t understand what they were doing or didn’t know it was wrong. This rule is still used today in many legal systems to decide whether someone should be excused from criminal responsibility due to mental illness.
Background
M'Naghten's Case (1843) is a landmark case in the intersection of psychology and law, establishing the M'Naghten Rule, which defines the legal standard for the insanity defense. The case arose when Daniel M'Naghten, suffering from severe delusions and mental illness, killed the secretary of the British Prime Minister, believing that he was acting under the instruction of God. M'Naghten's defense claimed he was not aware of his actions due to his mental state, leading to the court's decision to create a legal standard that would apply in future cases involving defendants with mental illness.
Case Overview
In M'Naghten's Case, the key issue was whether a defendant who is mentally ill can be held criminally responsible for their actions. The court ruled that a person is not criminally liable if, due to their mental illness, they did not understand the nature of their actions or did not know that their actions were wrong. This case set a precedent in criminal law, leading to the establishment of the M'Naghten Rule, which is still used today in many legal systems to assess whether a defendant can be excused from criminal responsibility due to insanity.
Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California.
This case examines the responsibility of mental health professionals when a patient makes threats of violence. It questions whether therapists are required to warn potential victims if they believe their patient poses a danger. The Tarasoff case is important in understanding the legal and ethical obligations mental health professionals have when it comes to balancing patient confidentiality with the duty to protect others from harm. This case laid the groundwork for the "duty to warn" concept, which is crucial for understanding the connection between psychology and law.
Circumstances of the Case
Tatiana Tarasoff was murdered by Prosenjit Poddar in October 1969. Tatiana's parents alleged that Poddar had told his University of California-employed therapist, Dr. Lawrence Moore, of his intention to murder Tatiana. They also alleged that Dr. Moore had informed campus police about Poddar's plans, but that Poddar had been released by the authorities following a short detention. Tatiana's parents argued that they, or their daughter, should have been informed of Poddar's threat by the therapists and the Regents of the University of California.
Original Ruling
In dismissing the defendant's second amended complaint, the Superior Court of Alameda County dismissed the parents' action on the grounds that the plaintiffs had not established a reasonable case against the police, therapists, or University of California Regents.
Ruling in the Appeal
The court held that the plaintiffs could amend their complaint to bring a valid cause of action against the therapists and the Regents of the University of California for breach of duty to exercise reasonable care. However, it was determined that the police did not have the requisite relationship with Tatiana Tarasoff to warn her of Poddar's intention.
Explanation of "Duty" in Relation to the Case
"Duty" in the Tarasoff case refers to the duty imposed by law to use reasonable precautions to protect others from harm that is reasonably foreseeable. The decision states that a defendant has an obligation of care to protect everyone who could reasonably be put in danger by their actions, including any dangers that could render their actions unreasonable. The court highlighted that liability is only imposed if the defendant has a unique relationship with either the potential victim or the dangerous individual when preventing foreseeable harm requires the defendant to regulate the behavior of another party or to warn of such behavior. The Legal Information Institute states that "duty" in law relates to the need to uphold a fair degree of care to save others from unreasonable risks of harm.
Explanation of "Failure to Warn" and "Special Relationship to the Patient"
Failure to Warn: Failure to warn refers to the legal liability of a professional, such as a therapist, who fails to warn potential victims when they know or should have known that their patient poses a danger to others. In the Tarasoff case, the therapists were found to have a duty to warn Tatiana or her parents of the threat posed by Poddar but failed to do so. According to the Legal Information Institute, "Failure to Warn" refers to a situation where a party has a duty to warn of a danger and fails to do so, resulting in harm to another party.
Special Relationship to the Patient: In the context of the Tarasoff case, a "special relationship" refers to the relationship between a therapist and a patient, which imposes a duty on the therapist to take steps to protect potential victims when they know or should have known that their patient poses a danger to others. According to the American Bar Association, a "special relationship" refers to a relationship between two parties that gives rise to a legal duty to protect one party from harm caused by the other party.