12 hours ago · Abstract. Federal law makes it a crime to threaten the life of the President of the United States. However, psychiatric clinicians have no legal obligation to report all such threats encountered in their practice. In deciding whether to report a threat, they must balance their obligation to protect the President with their duty to up-hold a patient's rights to confidentiality … >> Go To The Portal
Federal law makes it a crime to threaten the life of the President of the United States. However, psychiatric clinicians have no legal obligation to report all such threats encountered in their practice.
Full Answer
A therapist may be forced to report information disclosed by the patient if a patient reveals their intent to harm someone else. However, this is not as simple as a patient saying simply they “would like to kill someone,” according to Jessica Nicolosi, a clinical psychologist in Rockland County, New York.
Mandatory reporting laws, say some professionals, may discourage people from seeking professional help or fully disclosing their intentions; or providers may be reluctant to treat potentially violent patients because they fear liability for failure to properly fulfill the duty to warn.
Did a Patient Threaten to Sue You? Don't Panic or Argue It is not uncommon for a patient or family member who is unhappy with the services he or she receives in the ED to make threatening statements about filing lawsuits, says Justin S. Greenfelder, JD, a health care attorney with Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs in Canton, OH.
Requires mental health professional who has determined that a patient presents a serious and imminent danger to himself or others to report the concern to state government, and not to the third party potentially at risk*. Reasons for disclosure must be documented in the clinical record.
Contact your local FBI Office or call toll-free at 1-800-CALL-FBI (1-800-225-5324). If you are in a foreign country, contact the nearest legal attaché office.
Threatening the president of the United States is a federal felony under United States Code Title 18, Section 871.
Threatening government officials of the United States is a felony under federal law.
As it turns out, being miserable and praying for the death and destruction of someone is a thought crime, and not punishable by law, “there is no evidence justifying a reasonable inference that defendant intended to convey the idea of violent retribution.”
In many urban university-based settings, the psychiatric emergency service serves as a triage area and a quasi-inpatient setting as well as the entry point for psychiatric hospitalization. Patients who present to the emergency service commonly are acutely psychotic and potentially dangerous and are often diagnostically complicated because of substance use ( 13, 14, 15 ). Their length of stay is highly variable. Often patients need to wait in this setting for inpatient placements.
A second scenario that necessitates notification from the psychiatric emergency service is a patient who is intoxicated (alcohol, illicit drugs, or, more commonly, some combination) and who comes to the psychiatric emergency service making threats against the President.
When a patient presents to a psychiatric emergency service voicing threats against the President of the United States, a comprehensive evaluation is impractical. Although psychiatric emergency service clinicians perform brief violence risk assessments (suicide risk and risk of violence toward others) on a daily basis to make decisions about need for civil commitment, seldom are these evaluations conducted in a comprehensive manner—for example, with actuarial tools. The patient who voices threats against the President of the United States forces clinicians who work in such settings to determine how best to balance the duty to preserve patients' confidentiality with the statutory obligations and duty to warn or protect third parties. Threats to the President are Tarasoff cases involving a duty to warn or protect, except that the President of the United States is the innocent third party, and a specific governmental agency exists to protect his life.
In 1989, Griffith and colleagues ( 6) addressed the issue of duty to protect the President from threatening patients who have been admitted to inpatient settings. These authors recommended that a senior physician assess the gravity of the patient's statements and share this assessment with hospital administration and attorneys. They recommended several courses of action on the basis of the result on the senior physician's assessment of risk.
We considered these issues in light of the ethical principles that underlie clinical decision making: beneficence (the physician's duty to provide benefits and balance benefits against risks), autonomy (the physician's respect of the patient as an individual free to choose), nonmaleficience (the physician's oath to do no harm), fidelity (the physician's responsibility to the patient), and justice (the physician's treatment of all patients with equal respect, dignity, and fairness in the distribution of benefits and risks).
Anyone who is found guilty of making a credible threat of death, kidnapping, or bodily harm against the President, Vice President, or other individuals covered by this statute faces up to five years in prison and/or up to $250,000 in fines. In addition, anyone convicted of this crime may be sentenced to three years of supervised release but also may have internet access restrictions imposed upon release.
The post, which expressed anger over passage of the Affordable Care Act, stated the following: "It is time for Obama to die. I am dedicating my life to the death of Obama and every employee of the federal government." The Secret Service tracked the incendiary comments to Brian Dean Miller, who was living with his mother at the time, and arrested him for the crime of threatening the President.
The statute criminalizing threats against the President and other federal officials can be found in Chapter 41 of the U.S. Code. This chapter covers several different types of threat-related offenses involving federal government officials, plus related offenses such as blackmail, extortion, and receiving kickbacks from public works employees.
What is a 'Credible' Threat? According to the law, the threat must be made " knowingly and willfully " and must take the larger context of the statement into consideration. If such a threat is uttered as a political argument or made simply in jest, it typically won't rise to the level of "credible threat.".
Threats against foreign officials, official guests, or internationally protected individuals also are covered by this statute and carry the same penalties, although threats of assault (rather than murder or kidnapping) are punished by a maximum of three years in prison.
As with most other constitutionally guaranteed liberties, the First Amendment right to free speech has its limits. Miller, whose speech most certainly crossed the line, pleaded guilty in a Dallas federal court and was sentenced to 27 months in prison without parole. In this article, we explore the federal felony offense ...
Even if you didn't actually mean it, a threat that seems credible could land you in federal prison. If you've been charged with threatening the president or other government officials, or face other federal charges, you'll want to speak with a criminal defense attorney right away.
Portals. Law. v. t. e. Threatening the president of the United States is a federal felony under United States Code Title 18, Section 871. It consists of knowingly and willfully mailing or otherwise making "any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States ".
Threatening the president of the United States. Threatening the president of the United States is a federal felony under United States Code Title 18, Section 871. It consists of knowingly and willfully mailing or otherwise making "any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States ".
The statute prohibiting threats against the president was enacted by Congress in 1917. The maximum fine it allowed was $1,000 . The law was amended in 1994 to increase the maximum fine to $250,000.
The prototype for Section 871 was the English Treason Act 1351, which made it a crime to "compass or imagine" the death of the King. Convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 871 have been sustained for declaring that " President Wilson ought to be killed. It is a wonder some one has not done it already.
Attorneys' Manual, "Media attention given to certain kinds of criminal activity seems to generate further criminal activity; this is especially true concerning presidential threats which is well documented by data previously supplied by the United States Secret Service.
Attorney's Manual, "Of the individuals who come to the Secret Service's attention as creating a possible danger to one of their protectees, approximately 75 percent are mentally ill." The Secret Service notes, "These are probably Secret Service's most serious cases because it must be determined whether the person making the threat really wants to hurt [Secret Service protectees] or whether they may have some medical problems of their own, for which they need help." It is not uncommon for judges to order psychological evaluations of defendants charged under this statute in accordance with United States federal laws governing offenders with mental diseases or defects. Psychiatrists divide people who threaten the president into three classes: Class 1 includes persons who have expressed overt threatening statements but have made no overt action, Class 2 comprises individuals who have a history of assaultive behaviors toward authority figures, and Class 3 includes person who are considered dangerous and typically have been prosecuted under Section 871.
It is punishable by up to 5 years in prison, a $250,000 maximum fine, a $100 special assessment, and up to 3 years of supervised release.
A mental health professional has the duty to warn of or take reasonable precautions to provide protection from violent behavior only if the patient communicates an actual threat of physical violence by specific means and against a clearly identified or reasonably identifiable victim.
The holder of the records may disclose information when the patient has communicated a serious threat of serious physical injury against a reasonably identifiable victim, the person with knowledge of the threat may disclose the threat to the potential victim or to any law enforcement officer, or both.
The duty to predict, warn of, or take reasonable precautions to provide protection from, violent behavior arises only when a client or other person has communicated to the licensee a specific, serious threat of physical violence against a specific, clearly identified or identifiable potential victim.
Behavioral health professional - client privilege does not extend when the professional has a duty to (1) inform victims and appropriate authorities that a client's condition indicates a clear and imminent danger to the client or others; or (2) to report information required by law.
Mental health professionals must make a reasonable effort to communicate, in timely manner, the threat to the victim and notify the law enforcement agency closest to the patient's or victim's residence and supply a requesting law enforcement agency with any information concerning the threat.
Immunity for mental health professionals for release of information via 36-504 or 36-509. A release of information via 36-504 or 36-509 shall, at the request of the patient, be reviewed by a member of his family or a guardian. Section provides for appeal procedures.
California courts imposed a legal duty on psychotherapists to warn third parties of patients’ threats to their safety in 1976 in Tarasoff v. The Regents of the University of California.
Recent amendments to federal patient privacy regulations give clinicians new allowance to report patients with mental health issues, but state laws may differ. Ethicists can do the following:
Mathew David Pauley, JD, MA, MDR, regional ethicist at Kaiser Permanente Northern California in Oakland, has seen ethics consults called because clinicians were alarmed at a patient’s documented history of violence. Other times, ethicists were called when a patient or family member became violent in the hospital setting.
Mathew David Pauley, JD, MA, MDR, Regional Ethicist, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland. Phone: (510) 987-4608. Email: mathew.d.pauley@kp.org.
“If a therapist fails to take reasonable steps to protect the intended victim from harm, he or she may be liable to the intended victim or his family if the patient acts on the threat ,” Reischer said.
“If a client experienced child abuse but is now 18 years of age then the therapist is not required to make a child abuse report, unless the abuser is currently abusing other minors,” Mayo said.
A therapist may be forced to report information disclosed by the patient if a patient reveals their intent to harm someone else. However, this is not as simple as a patient saying simply they “would like to kill someone,” according to Jessica Nicolosi, a clinical psychologist in Rockland County, New York. There has to be intent plus a specific identifiable party who may be threatened.
For instance, Reed noted that even if a wife is cheating on her husband and they are going through a divorce, the therapist has no legal obligation whatsoever to disclose that information in court. The last thing a therapist wants to do is defy their patient’s trust.
“Clients should not withhold anything from their therapist, because the therapist is only obligated to report situations in which they feel that another individual, whether it be the client or someone else, is at risk,” said Sophia Reed, a nationally certified counselor and transformation coach.
In 1991, Appelbaum co-wrote a paperabout a model hospital policy by Worcester State Hospital in Massachusetts regarding the prosecution of patients; the policy included a statement of ethical principles for determining whether to prosecute patients and a 16-step procedure for pursuing criminal charges.
health-care organizations, released a “sentinel event alert” about workplace violence and called for restructuring to cut down its incidence.
Criminal prosecution is just one option available to health-care workers affected by violence from patients. Clinicians can take administrative actions after a violent incident, including reporting the event to supervisors or flagging a patient’s chart for past violence.
Violence from patients is a big problem in U.S. health care. According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, health-care and social assistance workers experience violent injuries that require days away from work at four times the rate of workers in the broader private sector. Assaults from patients can be particularly prevalent in ...
Can typically take up to 72 hours, depends if there is a quack pot OOPS! I meant a Psychiatrist on duty. Once someone is arrested under the mental act, ONLY a Psychiatrist can clear a patient. Not only is an evaluation/assessment standard procedure, an evaluation prior to release is mandatory.
302 means you don't have a choice you are committed immediately and you're not allowed to leave until the hospital deems you fit to be discharged. 1.4K views.
If it’s discovered that you decided to stop taking your psych meds but are taking care of yourself and aren’t a threat to yourself or others and voluntarily come to the hospital, there may not be a reason to hold you against your will to have a psych evaluation, as you have the right to not take your meds.
Anytime you transport someone, you’re at risk. Even if you’re being nice and pick a stranded motorist up to take to a service station, there IS a risk. In general , this isn’t a high risk deal so you can let them sit in back without cuffs.
Otherwise, you might be taken in by force, and end up seeing a judge after a few days. A brain can become diseased, just like any other organ. However, the concept of mental illness encompasses much more than just brain diseases. At one time, those who displeased the authorities might be accused of witchcraft.
Threatening the president of the United States is a federal felony under United States Code Title 18, Section 871. It consists of knowingly and willfully mailing or otherwise making "any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict great bodily harm upon the president of the United States". The law also includes presidential candidates, vice presidents, and former presidents. The Secret Service investigates suspected violations of this law and monitors those who have a history of th…
The first prosecutions under the statute, enacted in 1917, occurred during the highly charged, hyperpatriotic years of World War I, and the decisions handed down by the courts in these early cases reflected intolerance for any words demonstrating even a vague spirit of disloyalty. There was a relative moratorium on prosecutions under this statute until the World War II era. The number increased during the turbulent Vietnam War era. They have tended to fall when the country has n…
Convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 871 have been sustained for declaring that "President Wilson ought to be killed. It is a wonder some one has not done it already. If I had an opportunity, I would do it myself."; and for declaring that "Wilson is a wooden-headed son of a bitch. I wish Wilson was in hell, and if I had the power I would put him there." In a later era, a conviction was sustained for displaying posters urging passersby to "hang [President Franklin D.] Roosevelt".
The prototype for Section 871 was the British Treason Act 1351, which made it a crime to "compass or imagine" the death of the King. The statute prohibiting threats against the president was enacted by Congress in 1917. The maximum fine it allowed was $1,000. The law was amended in 1994 to increase the maximum fine to $250,000. Additionally, a 1982 law extended Section 871 to cover former presidents and candidates of major parties by adding 18 U.S.C. § 879.
Threatening the president of the United States is a class D felony under United States Code Title 18, Section 871. It is punishable by up to 5 years in prison, a maximum fine of $250,000, a $100 special assessment, and up to 3 years of supervised release. Internet restrictions such as a prohibition on access to email have been imposed on offenders who made their threats by computer. The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines set a base offense level of 12 for sending threatening …
There has been some controversy among the federal appellate courts as to how the term "willfully" should be interpreted. Traditional legal interpretations of the term are reflected by Black's Law Dictionary's definition, which includes descriptions such as "malicious, done with evil intent, or with a bad motive or purpose." In U.S. v. Patillo, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that a threat to the president could lead to a verdict of guilty "only if made with the present i…
According to the 2018 U.S. Attorney's Manual, "Of the individuals who come to the Secret Service's attention as creating a possible danger to one of their protectees, approximately 75 percent are mentally ill." The Secret Service notes, "These are probably Secret Service's most serious cases because it must be determined whether the person making the threat really wants to hurt [Secret Service protectees] or whether they may have some medical problems of their own, for which th…
• Barack Obama assassination threats
• Clear and present danger
• Imminent lawless action
• Lèse majesté