I posted an abbreviated version of Sue Franz's query about the strange
New Mexico law on a list where they might know about such things.
Here's my version, followed by a response I received. My comment is at
the bottom of all this.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
My summary of Sue's post:
A correspondent on another list reported that the following is the law
in New Mexico:
A. Criminal sexual contact is the unlawful and intentional
touching of or application of force, without consent, to the
unclothed intimate parts of another who has reached his
eighteenth birthday, or intentionally causing another who has
reached his eighteenth birthday to touch one's intimate parts.
B. Criminal sexual contact does not include touching by a
psychotherapist on his patient that is: (1) inadvertent;
(2) casual social contact not intended to be sexual in nature;
or (3) generally recognized by mental health professionals as
being a legitimate element of psychotherapy.
She wonders why the special exemption for psychotherapists. Given that
A. requires that the act is carried out without consent, B. seems to
imply that a psychotherapist can be excused even if consent is not
obtained. One wonders what kind of sexual psychotherapy could be
"generally recognized" that doesn't require consent before touching
"unclothed intimate parts". One also wonders what kind of "casual
social contact" might involve the same kind of touching.
It sure seems bizarre to me, but then, I don't make the laws in New
Mexico. Can anyone explain this?
-------------------------------------------------------------
Correspondent's reply:
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Apr 9 11:55:16 1999
My bet is that these quotes or paraphrases are taken somewhat out of context
and that a piece is either conveniently or inadvertently missing. New Mexico
is one of about 15 states that have criminalized sexual contact between
certain health professionals and clients. These statutes typically provide
that client consent cannot be used as a defense in such cases. That's the
piece that I think is missing here. If the law covers only psychotherapists
(which is typical in these statutes), it would be appropriate to make certain
reasonable exceptions for those professionals only. The current definitive
reference in this area is:
Bisbing, S.B., Jorgenson, L.M., & Sutherland, P.K. (1995). Sexual Abuse by
Professionals: A Legal Guide. Charlottesville: Michie. A 1999 annual
Supplement has just been released.
mike plaut
S. Michael Plaut, Ph.D.
Assistant Dean for Student and Minority Affairs
Associate Professor of Psychiatry
University of Maryland School of Medicine
655 W Baltimore St
Baltimore MD 21201
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
My comment:
So how about, it Sue? Except for the fact that your sections are
listed A, B ,C ,D, a missing excerpt might explain this. If I
understand what Mike Plaut is saying, it's that psychotherapists are
prohibited from sexual contact, even _with_ consent. Then the curious
passage makes sense if it allows some exceptions to that rule.
Can you check to see that you've got an accurate and complete listing
of the law?
-Stephen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Black, Ph.D. tel: (819) 822-9600 ext 2470
Department of Psychology fax: (819) 822-9661
Bishop's University e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lennoxville, QC
J1M 1Z7
Canada Department web page at http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
