sozobe wrote:(I had to re-read as to the purpose -- a client of yours whom you were trying to help is different than "I was assessing an offender for a report to go to the judge to give some background and such prior to sentencing." His prior crimes are very pertinent in that context.)
true, but this may or may not be a "crime" it was a gut feeling that D had..
they it "may" be a serious crime...sematics but i tend to agree with Cav on this one..i don't think it is D's duty to be a "crime solver" in this context...
In that case, Letty, she loses both ways.
She already informed him though... he seemed like he may have forgotten, but had been informed.
But whose word do you take? Or was it recorded?
Damn, D..what did you do?
I was wondering about that too, seems like there would be something official in that context -- recording, or Deb in her capacity as (whatever) is automatically considered official, or something...
That is a good point. If the talk was recorded, it wouldn't really matter if he "forgot" that he had been informed. He could have spilled, and it would have all been on tape, ergo, the crime confessed would be prosecutable. However, a good defence lawyer could still argue mental defect.
Gus, losing both ways is not always something that one considers when faced with this type situation. I've been there and it almost caused me to leave teaching.
Recorded in case notes - as per - "Client informed of limits of confidentiality".
We didn't usually expect them to spill their guts about undiscovered crimes!!!
(Though one DID about a crime he had already been charged with - but who had actually been convicted of a lesser crime!)
willow_tl wrote:sozobe wrote:(I had to re-read as to the purpose -- a client of yours whom you were trying to help is different than "I was assessing an offender for a report to go to the judge to give some background and such prior to sentencing." His prior crimes are very pertinent in that context.)
true, but this may or may not be a "crime" it was a gut feeling that D had..
they it "may" be a serious crime...sematics but i tend to agree with Cav on this one..i don't think it is D's duty to be a "crime solver" in this context...
Only crimes for which one has been convicted are relevant re sentencing. This would NOT have affected his sentencing.
Letty wrote:Deb, I'm not familiar with the legal system in Australia, but as I see it, you had to make the decision to let him talk, and perhaps have the judge throw out the entire case based upon the man's rights, or to inform him of those rights, and seal forever the possibility of bringing to light his psychotic background. Just a wild guess, but I'll bet you let him talk.
Where is this psychotic stuff coming from?
He was mentally competent.
Though I did get him psychiatrically assessed for other reasons...
I reread the situation several times. Wasn't sure that he understood that what he said to you was on the record. But it's clear that he was informed of this. Despite this, my first reaction was that I would remind him. Then I mulled. More mulling. Still mulling. Why am I taking so long? Because your role isn't familiar to me. Assessment. Not a patient. I think I'd let him talk. But I don't think this is clear-cut by any means. In fact, if I were in the same situation, I probably would have reminded him--a reaction from the gut. Not sure why.
Tres interesting.
Did the information he did (presumably, but maybe not) give you have to be submitted in your report?
That would be quite relevent to this dilemma.
cavfancier wrote:That is a good point. If the talk was recorded, it wouldn't really matter if he "forgot" that he had been informed. He could have spilled, and it would have all been on tape, ergo, the crime confessed would be prosecutable. However, a good defence lawyer could still argue mental defect.
Heavens to Betsy! Tape???
No way.
Jotted down notes...
Would not have affected his sentencing.
I'm all confused.
If it wouldn't affect his sentencing then less reason for it. In terms of what greater good would be served by him spilling, doesn't seem to be one. Would he then be prosecuted for this other crime?
(I'm getting bogged down in legal procedures I don't know much about... not sure if it's actually important.)
gustavratzenhofer wrote:Did the information he did (presumably, but maybe not) give you have to be commited in your report?
That would be quite relevent to this dilemma.
As I said, NOT relevant to the report.
Had he confessed to a murder or other serious crime, I would have informed police.
sozobe wrote:Would not have affected his sentencing.
I'm all confused.
If it wouldn't affect his sentencing then less reason for it. In terms of what greater good would be served by him spilling, doesn't seem to be one. Would he then be prosecuted for this other crime?
(I'm getting bogged down in legal procedures I don't know much about... not sure if it's actually important.)
I am way less interested in the LEGAL judgement than I am in the right or wrong thing to do - whether or not it meant a conviction.
Where the hell is the dilemma?
Having reread the original post, I'll hazard a guess and say you did not allow him to confess to the perceived crime.
Well, I would have reminded him. He is still a human being (weird, creepy or not) and you felt he didn't remember something very important.
Hard, that, as sometimes people just want to confess and maybe it would be better not to stop him. But I would have reminded him.
