[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Shrinks as Narcs for the State

At 9:06 PM -0700 9/10/97, snow wrote:
>(sorry, running behind on mail)
>> (Many think this is as it should be. But why is this so? We don't require
>> non-doctors and non-shrinks to report such threats. If Joe Cypherpunk tells
>> me at a Cypherpunks meeting he thinks Janet Reno should be blown up on her
>> September 7th visit to San Jose, I am under no obligation whatsoever to
>> assist the police in verifying what his real intentions are, or of
>> cooperating in any way. So why should a psychiatrist become a secret agent
>> for the State? We live in a police state.)
>	Actually, if you think the person _will_ do it, I believe you
>are legally obligated to report.

Care to cite a law, or even venture a guess as to which law might cover this?

Unless one is a party to the crime, as in "aiding and abetting," there is
no such requirement. Tarasoff applied a reporting requirement to shrinks
that ordinary persons did not have to worry about.

The "shooting Reno" example is really no different (*) from other crimes,
e.g., seeing bootleg videotaping in one's neighbor's garage, learning of a
bank robbery to be committed, etc. No laws require citizens to inform the

(* The potential exception involves things like "depraved indifference," a
vague notion that if one does nothing while someone dies....)

--Tim May

There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws.
Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!"
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
[email protected]  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."