MovieChat Forums > I Am Sam (2002) Discussion > Court appointed psychologist

Court appointed psychologist

posted 14 years ago by ohmypotter
9 replies | jump to latest

I'm watching this movie for the first time in a while, and this struck me as very odd and unfair. When Sam went to talk to the psychologist, she told him that since she was a court appointed psychologist the normal patient-client confidentiality would be waived. To me, you know you are talking with someone who has the I.Q. of a 7 year old, who clearly doesn't understand what you're saying [he even waved when she said that it would be "waived"], yet she didn't bother to elaborate further or rephrase herself in a way that would allow him to understand. I can't remember yet if that becomes an issue later in the movie [with him] but it doesn't seem fair to me that no one at all bothered to explain things to him so he could understand. Anyone with me?

[–] Ginkasa 14 years ago

It definitely felt like dirty tactics, but it isn't argued against in the movie.

[–] DocumentaryAddict 14 years ago

I am with you. Who the hell set THAT system set up? That scene disturbed me. they say he can't take care of Lucy because he's mentally handicapped, but he can understand his own rights and psycological jargon? Made no sense.

[–] bite_me_loser_86 14 years ago

Doesn't really become an issue per se, but you can tell later in court when the psychologist reads a quote from Sam, he shoots her a look like he is suprised and I think also hurt and sad that it was used against him.

But yes, I thought of that too. On the whole they never seem to go through much trouble explaining things to him so he could understand.
As a psychologist I think it's extra dirty to not make sure you get through to your patient.

[–] hppg 14 years ago

I know, that was ridiculous, he obviously didn't know. That'd be serious problems for the evidence I reckon as well as her licence.

One of my jobs used to involve typing police interviews and they go into great detail explaining to the suspect how the interview can be used against them as evidence in Court. Some of the people they were interviewing clearly weren't too bright and they explained it, then in different words, then asked them to explain it back to make sure they understood, if they didn't they'd go through it all again. I suppose criminal stuff is different but still.

[–] bigbadwolf666 14 years ago

I’ve been personally interrogated and I can tell you that it is very tricky. Half the time the cop does it to trick you so he can see what he can get out of you. You obviously don’t watch enough police brutality or are aware of it enough to know that they bend all the rules and as much as they can. If you really believe those interviews are legit then you clearly don’t have enough life experience.

But don't change a hair for me
Not if you care for me

[–] hppg 14 years ago

Um yes. My entire job of a year was a lie. They paid a whole company to type fake stuff to maintain the reputation of the police. All those hundreds of interviews I heard were clearly from actors, not real court evidence. And brutality benefits the police more than getting real confessions and evidence.

Look, I'm not denying the existence of police brutality, but I don't think it's that commonplace any more in your average petty criminal case. Everything has to be taped so you'd have to make sure anything violent was done behind cameras, the suspect kept quiet, you left no trace of violence etc. They would get very tough and accusatory verbally in what I heard, so it's not like they were being soft all the time. Now maybe if there's police corruption going on or in major cases or cases where there's some kind of personal connection then they're sneaky and there will be violence. I just don't think it happens in your average cases. Having said that, all I claimed in my other post was that they explain the suspect's rights very clearly in the interview, not that all police are also perfect behind the cameras all the time. I think saying there aren't untoward methods in the majority of cases is a reasonable call, and I have listened to hundreds of police interviews to back that up. Also I'm in Australia, if you're in the USA you have more violence there. And what do you mean I don't watch enough police brutality? It's there to watch? And somebody is supposed to be watching lots of it? Riiiight....

[–] bigbadwolf666 14 years ago

Also I'm in Australia

Problem solved.

Here in America is a totally different ball game.

I would go on on how your wrong and Im right but that is totally irrelevant as how it is just a misunderstanding of two going in different directions and best to keep you out of this info. as it would be a waste of time and not worth educating you on the differences because it truly is a nightmare.

One thing to say though is that this movie is based in America so that is mainly why i said that. Rules change in demographics. You cant expect the same rules to apply in Iraq. Can you?

I hope your continued good police work continues to be great.

P.S. Didnt mean to get your all rallied up but being part of police brutality and government corruption that truly offended me. Hard to believe, i know. Not everywhere in the world they treat you like a human.

But don't change a hair for me
Not if you care for me

[–] hppg 14 years ago

Yeah. Sorry, didn't mean to offend you. Very sorry for what happened to you. I reckon it would be different here though, it would also vary from state to state and depend on the crime, and I think it used to be worse here - but I'm not naive, I'm a lawyer and as a student I had that job which was a seriously large number of genuine interviews, search warrants etc. I don't know much about the US but I have seen videos from there like that guy Rodney King was it?

[–] z_imdb-492-389923 12 years ago

Yes I felt the same! Terrible scene.