The Tarasoff Decision

Tarasoff v. the Board of Regents at the University of California (California Supreme Court 551 P.2d 334, 1976) revolved around the activities of Prasenjit Podder, a male student studying engineering and naval architecture at the University of California, Berkeley. Podder was a bright student who had overcome severe poverty and hardships in his native India. Tanya Tarasoff was young woman who befriended him at school. Podder appears to have become obsessed with the student, taping their conversations, replaying them to assess whether Tarasoff was romantically interested in him, and following her. In time, Podder's thought process became increasingly disturbed. He began to believe that people were laughing at him. He made threatening statements toward Tarasoff to a friend of his. Although he followed the advice of this friend to seek mental health treatment at the university counseling center, he mistrusted his therapist/psychologist. Podder made threatening statements during therapy while concealing his intended victim's identity and terminated treatment at the center.

Later, when Podder reported to his friend that he wanted to obtain a gun, the friend called the psychologist who had previously treated Podder. The psychologist contacted campus security and consulted with his supervisors. Campus security detained Podder, questioned him, and then released him, with the warning to stay away from Tarasoff. The psychologist attempted to take further action but was prevented by his superiors. Podder eventually confronted Tarasoff at her home, and when she ran from him, he shot and then stabbed her repeatedly. Tarasoff's family sued the Board of Regents of the University of California for failing to protect their daughter. The Tarasoff family won the first court case but lost on appeal. The Supreme Court of California reversed the lower court's decision and awarded Taraosff's family with compensation, ruling that the university should have taken steps to ensure the young woman's safety.

Today, every mental health professional is aware of the Tarasoff decision. All states have similar legal statutes protecting potential victims. In general, mental health professionals are required to take steps to protect potential victims if they become aware of threats. Some interpret the Tarasoff decision as an erosion of the patient-therapist confidentiality; however, there are safeguards in place to ensure that confidentiality is not erroneously violated. In determining the legitimacy of a threat and whether it should be reported, a professional must assess whether it contains a serious intent, whether there is a formulated plan, and who the potential target is. When a threat is assessed as containing a focused intent, a formulated plan, and an identified victim, the professional can do one or a combination of the following to ensure the safety of the potential victim: (a) arrange for the person making the threat to be hospitalized voluntarily or involuntarily, (b) notify the identified victim of the threat, and (c) notify law enforcement. The exact responsibility of the mental health professional who [Page 462]becomes aware of a threat is outlined in legal statutes and varies between states.