Justice Scalias Dissent

Justice Scalia’s dissent in Jaffee v. Redmond The 1996 decision of Supreme Court’s in Jaffee v. Redmond RULED that communications within the relationship of psychotherapist-patient are privileged, other than it as well concurred that the privilege has wider scope. The preponderance issued these decisions above a Justice Scalia vigorous dissent. Justice Scalia blundered equally the majority's recognition of a privilege of psychotherapist and its addition of the privilege to clinical licensed social workers. In this case, the defendant in the litigation, Mary Lu Redmond, Police officer, had retorted a call of "fight in action". After the officer appeared at scene, she gunshot Ricky Allen to avert him from stabbing another person. Afterward Ricky Allen's administrator of estate, Carrie Jaffee, took legal action against Redmond at a federal district court of Illinois contending that Redmond infringed constitutional rights of Allen.When Jaffee learned that Redmond had partaken in a few 50 sessions of counseling with a licensed social worker, Karen Beyer, concerning her actions, she wanted to acquire a copy of notes of Beyer. Jaffee sustained that this would allow her to question Redmond additional efficiently. In return to the request of discovery, Redmond asserted that the notes enclosed privileged communications. The trial judge declined to recognize the psychotherapist-patient privilege claim and neither Beyer nor Redmond, conform to his order to divulge the Beyer's contents notes. At the conclusion of the trial the judge in his instructions to the jury, directed the jury that the rebuttal to yield notes of Beyer's had no "lawful justification." As a result, the instruction specified, the jury could deduce that the notes contents would have been adverse to Redmond. The jury granted Jaffee considerable monetary damages. The parties petitioned the rulings of judge's, eventually to the Supreme Court of U.S., which basically would be making a decision whether federal courts must recognize a privilege of psychotherapist-patient relationship beneath the Federal Rules of Evidence and, if hence, what its extent must be. The Court was solicited whether that privilege widened as well to social workers. Jaffee was the primary U.S. Supreme Court case to examine the significance of Rule 501 as it was to pertain to relationship of psychotherapists and patients. By a majority of 7-2 the Court affirmed that federal courts were to recognize the statements privilege made to psychotherapists in confidence in course of a therapy. Arguing in dissent, Justice Scalia, acquire the position that any such privilege claim must be focus to analysis case-by-case basis by the trial judge. Additionally the Court apprehended that it did relate to licensed social workers statements. Such recognition by inference, would as well apply with reverence to statements made to any certified or licensed mental health provider. Justice Scalia Vigorous dissent who took huge delight in illuminating that whilst it was correct that each state has a privilege that safeguards the relationship of psychotherapist and client, the privilege was generated by the legislature of state and not the state court and consequently there was practically no power for the opinion of majority. He alleged if there was a privilege that required to be generated; it must be made by the Congress and not the state court. [Wash ]On the other hand, he does, make the point that privilege is a construction of the legislature of state totally and if there is to be such a privilege for social workers or psychotherapists in a state, it will have to be ratified by your legislature of state and not by any state court. As a result, the reach of this opinion by the US Supreme Court as it will be valid to the states is extremely open to inquiry. Justice Scalia on the other hand failed to scrutinize what was on the schedule; explicitly, Evidence 501 of Federal Rule. Congress passing Rule 501, presented the means for development of privilege federal law. As a result, the matter was not whether, as a issue of common evidentiary policy, the Court considered it sensible to recognize a privilege of psychotherapist. In his dissent Justice Scalia, in Jaffee case argued in opposition to the recognition of a complete privilege, indicated the diversity of examples in which states that had espoused a privilege of psychotherapist-patient relationship, however establish exemptions to that privilege in numerous cases."[ Wash] One can eagerly envisage that it is expected that upcoming federal courts will pertain well-recognized exemptions for instance these when requested to recognize the privilege in child’s custody case or child abuse or neglect case. The current issue here is whether the sturdy, absolutist words of Jaffee will have any outcome in examples in which what is being sued is a claim of child neglect or abuse or in the perspective of a case in child custody. Similarly, Justice Scalia condemned the majority's decision to consist of social workers inside the realm of the privilege. On the one hand, he noted the difference between psychologists and psychiatrists, and on the other hand the social workers. The former own a great deal additional skill in the treatment of mental sickness and, in opinion of Justice Scalia's, as a result earn the safeguard of an evidentiary privilege far-off additional than the latter. However if the privilege of psychotherapy had been restricted to psychologists and psychiatrists, it would have affronted the legal equality principle as the poor and the middle class and working class members who cannot afford the services of psychiatrists have in any case require therapy of mental health as the well-off do. Since the clinical social workers training is not "similar in its rigor," the decision of majority to regard social workers in the similar way as psychiatrists and psychologists strike Justice Scalia as "irresponsible." Legal opinion of Scalia's did not hold any influence on the court, other than it replicates a disturbing drift in psychotherapy. To a greater extent as a realistic matter, patients are being inquired, in exchange for therapy, to acknowledge the yield of confidentiality -- even though not to the degree Scalia might like. Managed mental health care is gradually driving the relationship of patient-therapist to conversation that commences to be similar to that of a suspect and a police officer. In conclusion I do feel with no doubt, inculpating proof will be protected by the privilege of psychotherapist-patient relationship, and the culpable or legally responsible might not be held accountable. On the other hand, this intermittent injustice is considered lesser significant than encouraging and fostering the relationship amid a psychotherapist and their patient. References Jaffee v. Redmond, 116 S. Ct. 1923 (1996) Wash: The Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege After Jaffee v. Redmond: Where Do We Go from Here?", 76U. L.Q. 1341 (1998)

Cite this page