Media source privileges have not found the same level support as ...

[NguyenJ]

Media source privileges have not found the same level support as some of the other privileges addressed in this chapter. Debate whether you think there should be a media source privilege or if there should not be a media source privilege.
 
  Be sure to include under what circumstances should it exist, or what rationales should it be eradicated. Use two outside sources to support your claim.

Question 2

Discuss the dangerous patient exception. Pick either the Jaffee, Glass, or Menendez case and argue for or against the use of the dangerous patient exception in that circumstance.
 
  What will be an ideal response?

[Liamb2179]

Answer to Question 1

Media-source privilege a privilege allowing a reporter or other media representative to withhold disclosure of a source's identity. This privilege does not have the legal standing of other similar privileges such as the attorney-client privilege. Opinions will vary, but should be supported with outside sources. If permitted, the class could be divided in those in favor and those against and have an actual debate surrounding this issue.

Answer to Question 2

This dangerous patient exception, which would remove protection of the patient's communications with a therapist from forced disclosure in open court, stems from the legal notion that psychotherapists have a duty to protect the community as well as the patients they serve. In Jaffee v. Redmond, the Court rejected a balancing test that would weigh the interests of justice against the patient's privacy interests, and argued that a privilege would hinder treatment. In the United States v. Glass the court ruled that if there was no alternative to reveal a danger to a third person, such information should be disclosed. In the Menendez case during a second trial tapes of the therapy of the brothers was allowed into evidence, despite the brothers not knowing that their sessions were being recorded, because the therapy records contributed to the determination of the dangerousness and the prevention of harm. Opinions on these rulings will vary.