Legal and Ethical Issues - Case Study Example

The parents claimed that the culprit was initially detained by the local police, however once the culprit pretended to be logically, the culprit was released, the psychologist also used his influence to prevent the Poddar from any future arrest, and made a request to the police department to avoid taking any stern measures against Poddar. Legally, if the psychologist was aware about the killing, as alleged by the parents of Tatiana, then psychologist has violated the laws by supporting the murderer and providing assistance to the criminal.

It was observed that 'the superior court sustained defendants' demurrers to plaintiffs' second amended complaints without leave to amend'. As per the protest of the parents on the legal grounds imposed liability on the defendants on two different grounds i.e. the failure on the part of the psychologists to inform and warn the prosecutors about the danger before and after its occurrence, it is correct to relate that the psychologist legally under any law has no justification for hiding the truth and prevalent danger from the parents, police and courts, therefore as per law the psychologist has proven himself wrong through his actions which are violation of law, surprisingly the defendants forwarded and justified their actions in lieu with the California Tort Claims Act of 1963, according to which the defendants were under no compulsion to provide care and concerns for Tatiana (Lawrence, 2002).

The parents of Tatiana held the psychologist responsible under Lanterman-Petris-Short Act. Legally it has been observed that the psychologist has performed such action which is contradicting to the injunctions of the laws, 'defendant therapists cannot escape liability merely because Tatiana herself was not their patient', and therefore the reference provided by the defendants is not credible and non-explanatory. Legally a professional is under compulsion to warn and inform the public and police from any expected criminal course of their patient, therefore it was the legal responsibility of the psychologist to alarm the prosecutors, 'when a therapist has observed that his patient has revealed a serious danger of violence to another, the psychologist is liable to incurs an obligation to use reasonable care to protect the intended victim against such danger' (Lawrence, 2002).

As per law and legal perspectives the therapist was bound to take different precautionary measures to avoid such crime from occurrence, which in this case the psychologist failed to perform and execute. The failure on the behalf of the psychologist to inform the police, the court, and university administration and the parents has placed the psychologist under severe scrutiny for his failure to abide by the laws and regulations. Although the psychologist did inform the police at the later moment, however his actions were not enough to prevent the crime from occurrence, which could have been avoided because the psychologist was aware about the approach and feelings that were developed by Poddar towards Tatiana.

The prosecutor blamed the psychologist, and accused him for his failure and reluctance to share the truth at initial