Is the Republican hidden agenda to turn the USA into a Police State?
Arizona SB 1070, the Lieberman/Republican bill to strip citizens of their citizenship are only the latest in a long line of laws to strip Americans of their freedom in my opinion, so I ask : Is the Republican hidden agenda to turn the USA into a Police State?
Oh yeah, and there are plenty of neocons out there that are cheering them on. They just love saying "If you have nothing to hide, why not show your ID whenever asked?" They are OK as long as we loose our rights in the name of security. And since they are white middle class kids, they don’t think they will ever have to worry about THEIR rights.
Is it the 0bama tyranny or regime,I miss Bill Clinton now?What a sorry state of affairs?
No pun intended on slick willie.
I hear ya…Obama makes Clinton seem like a breath of fresh air!
Philippines Outsourcing Forecast in 2008
A LOT happened in 2007, it is mixed with good and bad scenario. Investment continues to be a big wave in spite of the political bickering which cannot be set aside. Despite the odds in the Philippine business arena, the country continues to spread its wing and gain reputation from the potential foreign investors. The Philippine government hurdle the trials in surviving from the economic dilemma last year, but ready to face the New Year.
In line with this, one of the most talked about forecast in the Philippine economy is about outsourcing industry. The question is, if what would the forecast in this industry be in the current year and beyond. Contact centers contributed millions of pesos as per recorded by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), and other concerned government agencies. Graduates easily landed on a job because of the opportunity it offers to the Filipino people. It is exceptional knowledge that English proficiency and outstanding customer service skills are among of the few reasons why Filipinos are known to this.
Based on the 10-point agenda highlighted by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, and to quote: "The creation of six million jobs in six years via more opportunities given to entrepreneurs, tripling of the amount of loans for lending to small and medium enterprises and the development of one to two million hectares of land for agricultural business."
It means to say that the Philippine Government wanted to fill-in jobless Filipinos because of the outsourcing jobs. A call center in the Philippines is noted to be the answer in the crisis which is the major concerns of all government agencies from the local and the national scene. Mrs. Arroyo vowed to strengthen the operations of world class call center companies in the country.
However, if the government is serious about its plan then eliminating, or intensifying drive against graft and corruption should be done accordingly. If the country intensified its campaign against this war, it will ensure to protect the benefits of the booming economy because of the operations of largest call center companies in the country.
The Cabinet vowed today to wage an intensified campaign against graft and corruption to ensure that the benefits of the growing economy would trickle down to the people, especially the poor, unmarred by corrupt practices. To prove this campaign, the Cabinet members led by Her Excellency proposed the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC) to crack down on grafters, including the issuance of the implementing rules and regulations of Republic Act No. 9485 or the Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007.
The President signed RA 9485 last June 2. RA 9485 states that heads of government offices are accountable to the public in rendering fast, efficient, convenient and reliable services. It also requires agencies concerned to act on pending papers within five working days involving simple transactions, and a minimum of 10 days for complex cases.
Another notable action done by the government was the call for the immediate passage of the Right to Information Act, Whistleblowers Act and House Bill 3003. The HB 3003 seeks to compel the government to publish the income tax returns of all government officials, whether they are elected or appointed, in a move to lessen if not eradicate corruption.
This is a good development because it shows that the national government is concerned about the protection of the investor no matter what happened. If the country is an investor-friendly then giving the opportunity to bind the relationship in terms of customer service business will be a great one.
Meanwhile, it is attractive also to call center investors if there will be enough allocated budget in the year 2008. In addition, the President appealed to the Congress for the passage of proposed PhP1.227-trillion national budget for 2008 the soonest possible time.
The immediate passage will not hamper the delay in the implementation of the government’s priority projects and programs.
However, news reports revealed that the Congress did not approve the proposed PhP1.227-trillion 2008 budget before it went on its Christmas recess last December as the Senate questioned the amount of P13.5-billion supposedly inserted by the House of Representatives.
Breakdown of the proposed 2008 national allocation is P91 billion higher than the 2007 general appropriations of P1.126 trillion. Of the P1.227 trillion allocations, P11.5 billion will fund infrastructure projects mentioned by the President in her State-of-the-Nation Address.
It was tackled that the national budget will focus on priority sectors like infrastructure facilities, education, health, science and technology, including housing and salary adjustments for the state workers.
With the presentation tackled above, it only means that outsourcing industry will remain as one of the top revenue contributors in the country. If the national leaders will stick on their promises, no doubt that in the shortest time allotted, the country will gather the fruits of its labor. And also, the country will continue to boost its honor as one of the top leaders in the outsourcing business.*
Roberto L. Bacasong
http://www.articlesbase.com/outsourcing-articles/philippines-outsourcing-forecast-in-2008-363707.html
Indians are Expert in Corruption
Indians are expert in corruption
Dalip Singh Wasan, Advocate.
We, the people of India can teach the world and all the people who are in power the methods of collecting money beyond our recognized sources of income and concealing all from others. We are known for corruption and for taking bribes from time immemorial. Even Shri Guru Nanak Dev ji the first Guru of the Sikhs had said that during his days even Qazis was taking bribe to give his verdict and when some people raise objections, he was supporting his decision from the guidelines given in Quraan. And during this time since 15th century, we have taken more steps in this direction and now we have reached a stage when we can open a university for teaching the world at large the methods of collecting money. The people in power have discovered, invented, established and they are following the following methods for collecting money and leaving no traces of evidence on the basis of which they could be caught and brought to book:-
(1) If you are on the chair you should delay the work of people who are approaching you and in due course they shall give you money as bribe so that they could save themselves from repeated visits. This is the first method and most of the people in offices have adopted this method and they are collecting money because the people who give money do not have any complaint. They get the work done without repeated visits, wastage of time, wastage of energy and burden on their brain.
(2) Try to raise objections on the case and one should be careful that all the objections should not be raised in the first letter. We should raise objections in piecemeal. This course shall compel the person approaching you to sit with you and come to an agreement and you would be able to have a contract with him and charge money out of the money the person shall save in the deal. The state shall be at a loss and both the parties shall benefit.
(3) If you want that the man approaching you may not approach police or vigilance department, you should take the money which the man has got in his pocket and never ask him to bring money from his house and then hand over the same to you because in due course, he shall be contacting the vigilance and you could be sufferer.
(4) Here in India people give in advance, people fix money and people give money as prizes too. So all these methods are adopted by the people in India and they are doing all this voluntarily without any compulsion from the side of money takers.
(5) If you are purchasing any article on behalf of the state, people selling you shall be asking you for filling the amount in the bill or cash memo and here you can have some money and here in this case the papers are complete and none from the audit side would be able to catch you.
(6) If you are contracting on behalf of the state, you can fix commission with the person to whom contract shall be given and this amount could be upto 30 to 40 per cent. We have been told through news papers that even ministers are also collecting money through these methods and here amounts are on the higher side because the amounts of contracts are on the higher side.
(7) If you feel that some commodity of daily use is in short supply in the country, you can locate some dealer in the international market and can order supply of that commodity and here people in the international market pay huge amounts as commissions and these muddles bring huge amounts which could be collected through hawalas or the like and even arrangement is there when you can deposit these collections in some bank in a foreign country under secret bank account which money shall be available to you and also shall be available for sons and daughters.
(8) If something is surplus in the country, that article could be sent to foreign countries and here too some commissions are charged at international rates and this money too could be transacted through hawala or deposited in foreign banks under fake accounts.
(9) Here people are ready to purchase government jobs, stations of their choice, therefore, one can collect money from these government servants too.
(10) Here jobs are on sale and even promotions are on sale and if need be you can collect money by sale of jobs and promotions.
(11) Here licences, quotas and some other items are on sale and if you are the controller, you can enter this field too and huge amounts could be collected from the customers.
(12) If you are party head then you can sell party tickets and sometime even ministries are sold here. This is an additional source of income.
(13) You can allow or you should understand that the people working under you shall be collecting money through small bribes or through prescribed rates and they shall be giving you the prescribed share and you should allow this system to go on and should not try to stop this system because this system is in vogue since generations and shares are also fixed and this money shall be reaching you as per traditions. The man collecting these funds shall be distributing the money as per prescribed rates and shall be keeping his own share too.
(14) We are already expert in indulging in scams, scandals, muddles, bribes, corruption, sale of jobs, sale of licences, sale of quotas, sale of stations, sale of promotions and even people could collect money from those employees against whom disciplinary proceedings are on and they are expecting a big punishment.
(15) Have contacts and share your collections with the catching agencies so that you could be save during your tenure.
(16) Try to avoid sign any document or maintain any document which could lead you condemnation in a crime.
(17) Try to have co-ordination with all so that they too may help you and share the benefits with you.
(18) Do not raise properties in your own name because you would be facing difficulties when asked from which money had come.
(19) Try to linger on police cases, court cases when you are facing trials and try to ensure that your next term comes when most of the cases could be written off.
(20) Try to avoid to go to jail because jails are meant for small criminals and for the under trials and not for rich and powerful people. They must try to remain outside and if because of bad luck you get jail term or judicial remand, you should make it sure that you are out in some hospital and having all the facilities of normal life.
(21) You should have money and people at your disposal who could help you in time of difficulty.
(22) You should learn the art of telling lie and when caught, you should start saying that you are being victimized because of your being in the opposition groups.
These are some measures which must be adopted for collecting money through scams, scandals, muddles, bribes, corruption, commissions, sale of jobs, sale of quotas, sale of licences or through commission and you must make it sure that the people who are keeping records and files must be helping you and are making due entries at appropriate places. You should keep in mind the following lines:
‘Sachaaye chhupp bhi sakti hai agar aapas main mail ho,
Khushboo aa bhi sakkti hai agar kaghaz main tel ho”
—————————–
Dalip Singh Wasan
http://www.articlesbase.com/advice-articles/indians-are-expert-in-corruption-229749.html
Hell or Heaven: Firsthand Authors Describe your Fate
Our earthly existence demands that we plan for our future in the best way that we can. We must conduct our affairs in this life in a prudent manner regarding investments, education, insurance and such to guide us towards the goal of safety and contentment. But what about a strategy regarding the afterlife when our brief stay on this planet is over?
Bill Wiese and Don Piper are two authors who describe in vivid detail the ultimate outcomes of our worldly lives in books respectively entitled “23 Minutes in Hell: One Man’s Story About What He Saw, Heard, and Felt in that Place of Torment” and “90 Minutes in Heaven: A True Story of Death and Life”. The aptly named books describe firsthand the reality of two extreme destinations one of which lies ahead of each of us according to our own freewill choices.
Wiese’s “23 Minutes in Hell” began at 3:00 a.m. on Monday, November 23, 1998 when he found himself being hurled through the air completely out of control before landing in what appeared to be a prison cell. He was “fully awake and cognizant” throughout the entire event during which he was led to experience a peril well beyond what can be imagined in this life.
“There is never any peace of mind. No rest from the torments, the screams, the fear, the thirst, the lack of breath, no sleep, the stench, the heat, the hopelessness, and the isolation from people.” Bill adds that “this place was so terrifying, so intense, and so hostile that it would be impossible for me to exaggerate the horror.” The hideous, seething creatures together with an overwhelming sense of hopelessness made one trapped in a “sea of tormented souls”.
The other end of the spectrum is explained by Don Piper’s “90 Minutes in Heaven” which describes his experience while declared dead after his car was struck by an eighteen-wheeler at about 11:45 a.m. on January 18, 1989. He was greeted in the heavenly realm by what he called a “celestial welcoming committee” of incredibly joyous people whom he had known previously that had passed on from earthly life.
Piper described the sensational level of bliss by stating that “everything I experienced was like a first-class buffet for the senses. I had never felt such powerful embraces or feasted my eyes on such beauty. Heaven’s light and texture defy earthly eyes or explanation. Warm, radiant light engulfed me. As I looked around, I could hardly grasp the vivid, dazzling colors. Every hue and tone surpassed anything I had ever seen.” Don was in another dimension and felt “fully alive” in a state of awe that human words are not capable of expressing.
The hell and heaven experiences of both authors are precisely in line with another source that has displayed irrefutable accuracy over time. This book is a compilation of 66 works written by about 40 authors over the course of approximately 1,500 years in three different languages on three different continents. The book that calls one’s attention to what awaits all in the afterlife is called the Bible.
The evidence is clear that the Bible gives harsh descriptions in regards to the reality of the “damnation of hell” ( Matthew 23:33 ). It warns of “everlasting destruction” ( II Thessalonians 1:9 ), “place of torment” ( Luke 16:28 ), “fire that never shall be quenched” ( Mark 9:43 ), ), “weeping and gnashing of teeth” ( Luke 13:28 ), “where their worm dieth not” ( Mark 9:44 ), “everlasting fire” ( Matthew 18:8 ), “outer darkness” ( Matthew 8:12 }, and “lake of fire burning with brimstone” ( Revelation 19:20 ) to name but a few of the wake-up calls regarding the “danger of hell fire” ( Matthew 5:22 ).
Heaven, on the other hand, is a place where “they shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more” ( Revelation 7:16 ) and “there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.” ( Revelation 21: 4 ). It will be an indescribable “eternal weight of glory” ( 2 Corinthians 4:17 ) for those who cherish and abide by the Bible’s teachings. It will be a place of pure love beyond our finite comprehension.
Bill Wiese gives his support and states that “the Bible is far more unique than any other book written. It has been scrutinized by an endless array of scholars, historians, archeologists, scientists, mathematicians, and the like for thousands of years. There have not been any discrepancies or errors that could not be cleared up with good scholarship.”
Bill supports this claim by listing quotes from both acclaimed scholars and respected historical figures who support the absolute reliability of the Bible. Don Piper is also one who conveys his full conviction with respect to the truth of the Scriptures without question.
So what guidelines are to be followed to enter the gates of heaven and avoid the described torments of hell after reading “23 Minutes in Hell” and “90 Minutes in Heaven” and the most popular book in the history of the world? The answer is clearly to pay close attention to the life and teachings of Jesus Christ as the only “mediator between God and men” ( 1 Timothy 2:5 ) to gain our heavenly triumph.
Both Bill Wiese who suffered the anguish of hell and Don Piper who had to leave the indescribable bliss of heaven to an agonizing recovery believe that their lives are meant to tell the world of the consequences that await us all. They are using their experiences to warn anyone and everyone about the realities of what they lived through. They also wish to share the truth that the only way to escape the eternal and hopeless trappings of hell is a commitment to the saving grace of Jesus Christ.
My own unfortunate life events are what led me to find this truth. I have suffered the effects of having been comatose for 11 days, walked away from a burning car wreck, been struck by a Mack truck and have escaped a handful of other potentially deadly or crippling circumstances. Failure has certainly not been a stranger in my life in other ways as well. I share a belief with the authors that my experiences in this life are meant for salvation on both a personal level as well as for readers who simply need to get right with God through Jesus Christ.
My advice? Find and join, if you haven’t already, a true Christian church that bases its teachings strictly on the verses contained in the Bible. Avoid at all costs any “feel good” or watered down alternatives that compromise the truth for the sake of profit or political correctness. Finally, believe the words of Jesus in John 14: 6 of “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” Your eternity depends on it.
( Bill Wiese’s “23 Minutes in Hell: One Man’s Story About What He Saw, Heard, and Felt in that Place of Torment” and Don Piper’s “90 Minutes in Heaven: A True Story of Death and Life” and the Bible can be purchased at http://www.christianbook.com )
Brian Connors
http://www.articlesbase.com/religion-articles/hell-or-heaven-firsthand-authors-describe-your-fate-138609.html
Social Work and the Law
NOTE: THE ARTICLE APPEARING BELOW WAS COPIED ON 22 JUNE 2009 BY http://www.cityadministrator.org/?p=397 WITHOUT MY PERMISSION AND WITHOUT CITING THIS AUTHOR. The blog is hosted by GoDaddy and registrant
Registrant Name:Joseph R Smith
Registrant Organization:FloridaView Media LLC
Baltimore City Department of Social Services v Bouknight,
488 U.S. 1301 (1988)
A three month old infant was admitted for treatment in a hospital. It became apparent that the mother, Jackie Bouknight may have maltreated the infant. Consequently, the Department of Social Services (DSS) petitioned the Court to declare the child as a “child in need of assistance” and grant it the power to put the child under foster care (Baltimore City Department of Social Services v Bouknight, 488 U.S. 1301 (1988). The Court granted relief and it was agreed upon by the parties that Bouknight shall have the custody of the child subject to the conditions of supervised parenting and an undertaking of non-infliction of bodily harm and punishment on the child. At first, Bouknight complied with the conditions but later on she became uncooperative and refused to produce her son to the DSS.
The DSS in fear for the safety and well being of the child filed a case before the Court to compel Bouknight to produce her son. She failed to appear before the Court but was later on arrested. On her refusal to disclose the whereabouts of her son, she was found guilty of contempt and was ordered to be incarcerated until compliance with the order [In re Maurice, No. 50 (Dec. 19, 1988). 314 Md. 391, 550 A.2d 1135].
On certiorari, the Court of Appeals of Maryland ruled that the incarceration of Bouknight was an infringement of her Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination. According to the Court, the production of the son is testimonial in nature because by doing so, it only proves Bouknight’s “continuing control” over her son which may be utilized in a criminal proceeding. It ruled that there are acts of production deemed to have testimonial value citing the case of U.S. vs. Doe (Baltimore City Department of Social Services v Bouknight, 488 U.S. 1301 (1988).
The U.S. Supreme Court granted the stay of DSS pending the filing of the requisite petition for certiorari. The grant of stay was based on the fact that even assuming that the act of production of the child is testimonial in character, many line of decisions of the Court are clear that as between the public need vis-à-vis a single claim of an individual on constitutional privilege, the former is upheld. In this particular case, the safety and interests of the abused child must be upheld over Bouknight’s assertion considering that, in the hierarchy of values, the safety and welfare of the child takes precedence over other concerns (Baltimore City Department of Social Services v Bouknight, 488 U.S. 1301 (1988). Moreover, the information sought which is the whereabouts of the child is for the contempt charge and therefore civil in nature (Baltimore City Department of Social Services v Bouknight, 488 U.S. 1301 (1988).
The Fifth Amendment: Right against Self-Incrimination
The Fifth Amendment originated from England and derived from the Latin maxim “nemo tenetur seipsum accusare” meaning “no man is bound to accuse himself” (Levy, 1968). It was used in both the accusatorial and inquisitorial legal systems of England (Levy, 1968).
In the U.S., after the revolution the states ratified the Constitution with the inclusion of the privilege in the bill of rights. The original version of Madison was amended by the House to include “in any criminal case” (Schwartz, 1971). Thus, as it now stands, the Fifth Amendment provides, “. . . nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself . . .” (U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights). The primary purpose of its inclusion in the Bill of Rights is “to protect the innocent and to further the search for truth” [Ullmann v. United States, 350 U.S. 422 (1956)]. However, in subsequent line of decisions, the Court ruled that other privileges stated in the bill of Rights are more in the nature of adjuncts to the determination of truth such as the right to counsel or the safeguards afforded by the Fourth Amendment while the privilege against self-incrimination is primarily for “the preservation of the accusatorial system of criminal justice” [Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 460 (1966); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 760–765 (1966); California v. Byers, 402 U.S. 424, 448–58 (1971)]. This maintains the integrity of the judicial system and protects the privacy of the individuals from government intrusion [Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 460 (1966); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 760–765 (1966); California v. Byers, 402 U.S. 424, 448–58 (1971)]. The privilege is a guarantee against compulsion for testimonial evidence which consequently will result in the imposition of criminal penalty on such person making testimony.
The Court laid down the requirements necessary before a party can successfully invoke the protection of the privilege against self-incrimination. In the cases of U.S. v. Doe, (465 U.S. 605) and Doe v. U.S. [487 U.S. 201, 209 (1988)], the Court enumerated the three (3) requisites that should be present for the Fifth Amendment to apply, namely: a) “that the statement be testimonial; b) incriminating; and, c) compelled.” According to the court, ‘testimonial’ refers to all communications whether express or implied which “relate to a factual assertion or disclose information” (Ashby, J., 2006 citing Doe v. U.S., 487 U.S. 201). The statements or communications made whether verbally or in writing fall within the privilege (Ashby, J., 2006) and is not limited by the forum where it was elicited, i.e. before the court, administrative proceedings or before the law enforcement office [Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70 (1973)]. The second requirement, ‘incriminating’ refers to statements that can be used as a basis for a finding of criminal liability under a penal law or “provides a link to the chain of evidence for prosecution under a criminal statute” [United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000)]. The third requisite is the compulsion to give a statement. The Court explained that this requisite refers to “circumstances that deny the individual a free choice to admit, to deny, or to refuse to answer” (Ashby, J., 2006). Additionally, the Court ruled in the case of Fisher v. United States that these three requisites should all concur and be present so that the privilege can be successfully invoked [425 U.S. 391(1976)].
Legal and Ethical Issues and their Impact on Social Work Practice
The main legal issue in the case of Baltimore is whether the circumstances surrounding it would fall within the ambit of the privilege against self incrimination and consequently, Bouknight may successfully invoke it and prevent her from being compelled to produce or furnish the whereabouts of her son lest be incarcerated for contempt.
The Supreme Court allowed the stay of the decision of the appellate court for overturning the ruling of the juvenile court and in finding that the compulsion for Bouknight to produce her son squarely fell within the privilege and therefore ordered her release (Alderman and Kennedy, 1992). The appellate court found that the act of production is testimonial and therefore its compulsion, is a violation of the privilege. Furthermore, the interest of the government in the safety of the son cannot outweigh the observance and respect for the privilege against self incrimination as provided in the Bill of Rights (Alderman and Kennedy, 1992). In other words, the three requisites concurred, i.e. the act of production or of furnishing information as to the whereabouts of her son are incriminating and testimonial in character; and, there was also compulsion because if she failed to disclose information sought she would be incarcerated for contempt as what had happened.
The Supreme Court through Chief Justice Rehnquist predicated his discussion on three major points, namely: a) The Court of Appeals passed upon a controversy concerning the federal Constitution which logically can be properly resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court (California v. Riegler, 449 U.S. 1319); b) The act of production does not fall within the ambit of the privilege citing the cases of U.S. v. Doe, Fisher v. U.S. and Schmerber v. California. In these cases, the court ruled that the act of production of the documents is not ‘testimonial’ and therefore does not infringe upon the privilege considering that their existence and location are already known to the Government. In fact, responding to a subpoena have been considered legal and acceptable even if compulsion is present [Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976)]. Moreover, when an accused is required to furnish his handwriting sample, this had been held not to violate the privilege because it is not ‘testimonial’ but merely evidentiary United States v. Flanagan, 34 F.3d 949 [10th Cir. 1994]). The third point c) is by using the balancing of interests test or balancing the public need vis-à-vis ensuring the individual’s constitutional civil liberties, public need prevailed considering that the disclosure of information was non-criminal and not directed at a particular group as was held in the case of California v. Byers, 402 U.S. 424 (1971) where the validity of a law requiring disclosure of the name and address at the scene of a vehicular accident. Similarly in the case of New York v. Quarles where the Fifth Amendment rights have to give way to a public safety exception and therefore in the case of Bouknight, “the public safety exception to the Fifth Amendment was justified because its interest was in protecting children like Maurice, not in prosecuting” (Alderman and Kennedy, 1992).
In sum, the privilege against self-incrimination is not an absolute right. Albeit the civil liberties accorded under the Bill of Rights safeguards undue government intervention and restraint to its power, there are instances when these rights would have to give way to compelling interests of the society that would warrant Government intervention and intrusion such in the case of protecting and ensuring the safety of infants or children from physical abuse. Once it has been established that a child is abused, it becomes the duty of the State to take over and protect.
The judicial pronouncement in the case of Bouknight has a pervading and far reaching implication on social work practice. This gives the social workers a great burden and responsibility to follow up sharply abused children in foster care or those released under an order of protective supervision. Admittedly, there is an apparent lack of strict protocols in the present system of child welfare agencies (Parks, 2005). A set of guidelines must be crafted to govern exigencies of missing children from foster care like supervised visits and court orders in cases of abduction like what have occurred in Maryland with “Ariel” who had been abducted by his mother Teresa B (Parks, 2005). Guidelines should also be drawn to address the coordinated efforts both with the law enforcement and child welfare personnel.
Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California,
17 Cal.3d 425
A graduate student from India, Prosenjit Poddar went to the University of California Berkeley to study naval architecture. It was there that he met Tatiana Tarasoff. A few kisses made him believe that they have a special relationship until Tarasoff bragged about her many relationships with other men. Poddar suffered depression until he sought professional help from Dr. Moore, a psychologist of the University Health Service. He confided to the doctor that he intended to secure a gun and to kill Tarasoff. On the strength of a letter request of Dr. Moore, Poddar was taken by the campus police, however upon assurance that Poddar was reasonable he was released. Upon the return of the University Health psychiatrist from his vacation, he ordered the destruction of Dr. Moore’s letter and did not recommend any further action on Poddar’s case.
When Tarasoff returned from her vacation, she was stabbed and killed by Poddar who at that time moved in with her brother already. The parents of Tarasoff sued the Regents of the University, its health personnel namely, Gold, Moore, Powelson, Yandell and the campus police namely, Atkinson, Beall, Brownrigg, Hallernan, and Teel for “failing to warn their daughter of an impending danger” (Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425). At the lower court, the complaint was dismissed because there was no cause of action. According to the lower court, the defendants only had the duty to the patient and not to a third party.
The dismissal was appealed to the Appeals Court but which only sustained the dismissal. Thus, it was elevated to the Supreme Court of California. The appealed decision in so far as the university police officers, Atkinson, Beall, Brownrigg, Hallernan, and Teel finding them not liable to the plaintiffs was affirmed. However, in so far as the therapists and the Regents of the university, the appealed decision was overturned for reception of evidence in accordance with the pronouncements of the Supreme Court (Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425).
In fine, the complainants averred four (4) causes of action, namely: a) “Failure to detain a dangerous patient; b) failure to warn on a dangerous patient; c) abandonment of a dangerous patient; and, d) breach of primary duty to patient and the public” (Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425).
Anent the first and fourth causes of action, the Supreme Court ruled that the defendants cannot be held liable because of a specific provision of the Government Code or Section 856 thereof which grants immunity to public employees from any resultant damage or injury from deciding whether or not to confine a person with mental ailment. This provision is also applicable to the therapists because the law also refers to those who are capable of recommending confinement. As regards the third cause of action, the government immunity includes the “award of exemplary damages resulting from a wrongful death” and therefore, defendants cannot be held liable (Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425).
Anent the second cause of action, the Supreme Court found defendants therapists and Regents of the University to have failed to comply with their duty to warn Tarasoff of the peril to her life. Albeit, the therapists had no direct relations with Tarasoff, they could have reasonably foreseen the danger and threat to her life as confided by their patient, Poddar. This is the point where the law establishes the duty of care on their part to warn Tarasoff. Their failure to warn her may reasonably concluded as a proximate cause of her death. The duty of confidentiality between patient and psychotherapist and the right to privacy of the patient cannot prevail over public interest or public safety. Moreover, there are clear provisions of laws, i.e. Section 1024 of the Evidence Code and Section 9 of the Principles of Medical Ethics of the American Medical Association which allows the physician to divulge matters confided to him in confidence when it is necessary for public welfare (Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425).
Confidentiality
The effective therapeutic relationship between physician/psychiatrist and patient rests largely on trust that matters confided by the patient during the treatment are kept in strictest confidence by the physician/psychiatrist. It is the ethical duty of the physician to observe privacy and confidentiality of his patients (Corbin, 2007). While it is also of public interest to ensure that treatment of those who are mentally ill by maintaining an atmosphere whereby they can have an open dialogue with their therapist and of safeguarding its confidential character; the same public interest calls for an imperative recognition of instances whereby disclosure of the confidential communications be revealed and be made to safeguard public safety and avert the threatened peril. In the instances, where the public safety is at risk, the therapist must disclose confidential information discreetly with due regard to protecting the privacy of his patient (Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425).
The parameters of confidentiality are defined by law and by the ethical code of conduct for practitioners in the territorial jurisdiction. In the case of Tarasoff, the Evidence Code and the Principles of Medical Ethics of the American Medical Association provided specific and limited exceptions under which the confidentiality privilege can be breached, i.e. “if the psychotherapist has reasonable cause to believe that the patient is in such mental or emotional condition as to be dangerous to himself or to the person or property of another and that disclosure of the communication is necessary to prevent the threatened danger; unless he is required to do so by law or unless it becomes necessary in order to protect the welfare of the individual or of the community” (Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425).
It would be wise for the practitioners to familiarize themselves of the limits of confidentiality as provided under the laws considering that it may differ from state to state. The Tarasoff case provided a basis to guide a practitioner in his professional dealings relative to the duty to warn others in cases of a specific threat of harm by his patient against others/another. Subsequent cases followed the consistent pattern of the jurisprudence laid down by the Supreme Court. In the case of David v. Lhim (1983), the plaintiff-administrator of the estate sued the psychiatrist who treated the son who killed his mother after he was released from the hospital. There was failure on the part of the psychiatrist who treated the son to warn the mother of the potential danger after her son confided his intentions of killing her (Corbin, 2007). In another case, Chrite v. U.S. (2003), the Veterans Administration was held liable for having failed to warn the intended victim of a patient of a threatened harm. Subsequent rulings of the court clarified and defined what constituted ‘threat’ as “imminent threat of serious danger to a readily identifiable victim” and “specific” (Corbin, 2007).
When there are no specific provisions of the law, Dickson (1998) proposes that the therapist/practitioner may be protected against lawsuits if he would consult and keenly document the case of the patient or comply with the “mandated reporting guidelines” required by some states. Reamer (2003) on the other hand, suggests that the therapist must have evidence that the patient is a threat to the safety of another; evidence of that the threat can be foreseen; threat is imminent and that the potential victim is identifiable.
Legal and Ethical Implications and their Impact on Social Work Practice
The duty of reasonable care to assist others in danger is a legal duty as well as a moral duty. However, American negligence law only recognizes it as a moral duty except when there exists a relationship between parties. In the case of Tarasoff, no special relationship existed between the therapist and Tarasoff; however the court has made an exception to this general rule (Bickel, 2001). It declared that the therapist has the duty to care and to warn Tarasoff of the imminent harm on her life. This also includes the duty to control the conduct of his patient, Poddar. In the same breath, a doctor has the duty to warn his patient if he has a contagious disease (Saltzman and Furman, 1999).
There is an affirmative duty for the therapist to advise and warn Tarasoff of the threat to her life although this meant breach of confidentiality with his patient Poddar. This finds basis both legally and ethically considering that the law and the code of ethics for doctors have recognized and provided specifically that doctors are bound to disclose relevant facts to others even if this violates confidentiality with their patients provided they are required by law or if it is required for public safety (Saltzman and Furman, 1999). This legal duty to warn applies when the threat is specific and imminent and where the victim is “readily identifiable” (Bickel, 2001). The courts also have recognized the difficulty in assessing and predicting circumstances that may lead to harm or violence and consequently, adhered to the ‘professional judgment rule’ whereby the therapist is not held liable for errors of judgments. Liability attaches only upon showing that the conduct of the therapist was not in accordance with the “accepted professional standards” (Bickel, 2001).
There is an ambivalence that was created by the Tarasoff protective disclosure ruling with the practitioners (Kachigian and Felthous, 2004). Analogous cases and protective disclosure statutes in the different states were analyzed and it was discovered that there are no clear defined parameters of these duties. The therapist is required to a certain way betray his patient by disclosing matters which are protected by confidentiality. Considering the uncertainty brought about by the legal doctrine and court decisions, the undesirable consequence of which was deterrence for therapists to accept “treatment potentially violent patients” (Merton, 1982). Moreover, therapists are more inclined to have their patients committed in an institution so that threats to the safety of potential victims can be averted.
The Tarasoff protective disclosure was even extended recently to include even “communications made from a patient’s family member” as pronounced by the Court in the case of Ewing v. Goldstein (May and Ohlschlager, 2008). The dubious jurisprudential precedents by the courts in interpreting the protective disclosure statutes or its resort to common law instead of interpreting the statute left a vacuum in the definition of the duty to protect (Kachigian and Felthous, 2004). As a result, “clinicians must continue to rely on their clinical and ethical judgment, rather than statutory guidance, when considering potential protective disclosures or future drafts of protective disclosure statutes” (Kachigian and Felthous, 2004).
References
Alderman, E. and Kennedy, C. (1992). In our defense: the bill of rights in action. First Avon
Books edition.
Ashby, J. (February 2006). Note declining to state a name in consideration of the fifth amendment’s self-incrimination clause and law enforcement databases after Hiibel. Michigan Law Review, No. 4, Vol. 104:779.
Baltimore City Department of Social Services v Bouknight, 488 U.S. 1301 (1988).
Bickel, R. Revisiting Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California: the scope of the psychotherapist’s duty to control dangerous students. Presented before the 22nd Annual Law and higher Education conference in Clearwater, Florida on 18-20 February 2001.
California v. Byers, 402 U.S. 424, 448–58 (1971).
Corbin, J. (Fall 2007). Confidentiality and the duty to warn: Ethical and legal implications for the therapeutic relationship. The New Social Worker, Vol. 14, No. 4.
Dickson, D. T. (1998). Confidentiality and privacy in social work. New York: The Free Press
Doe v. U.S., 487 U.S. 201, 209 (1988).
Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976).
Kachigian, C. and Felthous, A. (September 2004). Court responses to Tarasoff statutes. Journal
of American Academy of Psychiatry and Law Online, Vol. 23:263-273.
Levy, L. (1968). Origins of the fifth amendment: The right against self-incrimination.
May, S. and Ohlschlager, J. (2008). California alert! Tarasoff ruling expanded for clients who ‘go off.’ ECounseling. American Association of Christian Counselors.
Merton, V. (1982). Confidentiality and the dangerous patient: Implications of Tarasoff for Psychiatrists and lawyers. Emory Law Journal, Vol. 31:265.
New York v. Quarles, 476 U.S. 649 (1984).
Parks, A. (2008). Unless the Court of Appeals decision is reversed, MD children may not be. Daily Record The Baltimore.
Reamer, F. (2003). Social work malpractice and liability. New York: Columbia University Press, 2nd ed.
Saltzman, A. and Furman, D. (1999). Law in social work practice. Brooks Cole, 2nd edition.
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966).
Schwartz, B (December 1971). The bill of rights: A documentary history. Chelsea House Publishers with McGraw-Hill Education.
Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425.
Ullmann v. United States, 350 U.S. 422 (1956).
U.S. v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605.
United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000).
E.Writers
http://www.articlesbase.com/education-articles/social-work-and-the-law-756045.html
9/11: THE ROAD TO TYRANNY – Abby Newman Gets Arrested
“9/11: THE ROAD TO TYRANNY”
The FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force flyer.
Abby Newman gets arrested
at an illegal ID checkpoint.
President George Bush declares New World Order.
http://www.infowars.com
http://www.jonesreport.com
http://www.prisonplanet.com
http://www.infowars.net
Duration : 0:10:1
Obama = Wall Street? Celente on corruption and gambling in finance
Barack Obama has traveled to New York to deliver a speech to Wall Street asking for the support of his Financial Reform bill. But will his proposal bring the change needed to fix the problems that helped cause a financial crisis in the first place?
Duration : 0:5:57
911: THE ROAD TO TYRANNY – Oklahoma City Bombing – Pt. 2/3
The United States Federal Government
bombed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal
Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
on April 19, 1995, killing 168
people including 19 children.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/
Duration : 0:9:31
911: THE ROAD TO TYRANNY – Oklahoma City Bombing – Pt. 1/3
“911: THE ROAD TO TYRANNY”
The United States federal government
bombed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal
Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
on April 19, 1995, killing 168
people including 19 children.
http://www.infowars.com
http://www.prisonplanet.com
http://www.infowars.net
http://www.prisonplanet.tv
Duration : 0:10:0