I was watching a made-for -TV movie about the brothers Menendez (Lyle and Eric), who were convicted of murdering their parents in 1989.
The movie was quite well done-only, I have a hard time with the characterization of the father as a monster. Obviously, mr. Menedez was a hard-driving executive, and no doubt he drove his sons to excel. However, I cannot accept that he was as bad as the flic made him out to be.
Anyway, supposedly, Eric confessed the murders to a psychiatrist, who went to the police. Is this a violation of medical ethics?
Finally, how are the boys adjusting to prison life? Going from being a Princeton undergrad, and tennis champ/competitive swimmer to a max. security state pen, must be quite a comedown for poor Eric.
I saw the same TV movie the other night. I did not perceive Mr Menendez as a monster myself; I saw him as a man, emotionally dysfunctional, who wanted his sons to excel, less for their own sake and more as an extension of himself. He doesn’t seem to have taken the time to get to know them. And, like King Lear, paid a heavy, if unconscionable and undeserved, price for it. Nothing he did (as presented in the movie) warranted his murder, certainly not as “self-defense” or “self-preservation”. My feeling was the Lyle and Erik could have found another way out, if they really wanted one. But apparently they thought differently. shudder
As for the ethical issues: the psychiatrist made the point to Lyle that he was not bound by doctor-patient confidentiality if Lyle threatened him. I don’t know what the basis for this is. Perhaps that is a topic for another thread?
Prosecutors in Los Angeles are reviewing new evidence in the case of Erik and Lyle Menendez to determine whether they should be serving life sentences for killing their parents in their Beverly Hills mansion more than 35 years ago, the city’s district attorney said Thursday.
Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón said during a news conference that there is no question Erik Menendez, 53, and his 56-year-old brother, Lyle Menendez, committed the murders, but his office will be reviewing new evidence and will make a decision on whether a resentencing is warranted in the notorious case that captured national attention.
The new evidence presented in a petition includes a letter written by Erik Menendez that his attorneys say corroborates the allegations that he was sexually abused by his father.
Wow, over 30 years in prison. Even the Law and Order episode ripped from these headlines is old enough to vote.
Wasn’t there a new movie about them very recently, or did I simply misinerpret the commercial I wasn’t really paying attention to?
IANAL:
Most states have an exception to the therapist-patient privilege for dangerous patients, often referred to as the Tarasoff duty. (Tarasoff v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 17 Cal.3d 425 (1976).) Depending on the jurisdiction, the exception either allows or requires therapists to report statements by patients that indicate dangerousness. The law might, for instance, say that therapists must disclose statements when the patient presents a risk of serious harm to others and disclosure is necessary to prevent that harm.
The therapist’s required course of action can depend on the circumstances, and can involve notifying the potential victim, the police, or both. (United States v. Chase, 340 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2003).) For instance, if a patient tells her psychiatrist that she plans on shooting her ex-boyfriend, the psychiatrist may have to notify the police and warn the former beau. If the patient is sufficiently mentally ill, the therapist may be required to initiate involuntary commitment proceedings. - SOURCE
I am not sure how that testimony from the psychiatrist was used in the Menendez case. Different states are different.
My understanding was a psychiatrist cannot divulge what was said to them unless the person presents a danger to themself or others or otherwise try to use the psychiatrist to commit a crime (e.g. get drugs prescribed). In other words, saying you killed someone is privileged. Saying you intend to kill someone is not. Also, there is usually a child abuse exception where they must report to law enforcement (again, probably varies between states and, again, IANAL).
Netflix, that sounds like it.
Among the new pieces of evidence is an allegation by a member of the boy band Menudo that the Menedez’s father had molested him.
This would be consistent with the claims by the brothers that they were sexually abused by their father.
Still doesn’t absolve them of killing him. Let alone their mother.
No. From what I’ve read, the issue isn’t innocence. It’s if there should be a sentence reduction.
OK, I could support parole, when they turn 65. Maybe.
Even if true, I’m not understanding why this makes them killing him (and thier mother) a mitigating factor. Especially if they argue that they feared for their safety. They were grown men. They owned cars. They could have left at any point.
They should be freed as soon as they’re rehabilitated.
So should every prisoner. How can you tell when two brothers who premeditated and gruesomely murdered their parents and then followed up with an ongoing premeditated lie about what happened while lavishly spending their parents wealth are rehabilitated?
That’s up for the relevant experts to decide.
It’s for a judge to decide this time.
Can’t ignore the circumstances that the LA district attorney seeking the reduced sentence, is facing a stiff re-election campaign. Timing of his reconsideration is funny, regardless of his pleas that the decision is “not political”.
There are other prisoners that deserve reconsideration of their sentences for past drug crimes before the Menendez brothers.
Prosecutors recommend resentencing:
Prosecutors set to reveal whether they favor resentencing Erik and Lyle Menendez | AP News
Is there enough of a Free the Menendez Brothers faction to sway the election? I doubt it.
The immediate impact is that it sends a “soft on crime” message. I can’t see that doing favors for reelection.