Priest–penitent privilege

[Charles]

Disclosures made to clergy members while in active practice of their clerical duties as spiritual advisors are protected from disclosure.

What do you think? I think this stinks if it is true. Priests/clergy should not be exempt from any legal proceedings that "normal" people would be. (Same goes for taxes for religious institutions but that's for another thread.)

[afan95]

And what about the attorney who defends the killer who knows the person is guilty but because of attorney/client privilege and/or the case of a lifetime still puts on a show to let them go free.

Stinks, huh?

[Biscuit]

Are'nt all Catholic preists gay??

[Charles]

And what about the attorney who defends the killer who knows the person is guilty but because of attorney/client privilege and/or the case of a lifetime still puts on a show to let them go free.

Stinks, huh?

I've questioned the logic of that myself. (In fact, I thought I started an OC Connect thread on this a few months ago???) If there was no attorney client privilege then a defendant who truly did the crime would have to lie to his attorney, assuming admitting his crime to his attorney would force the attorney to disclose the admission. So, a this defendant who deserves to be found guilty will lie and put his attorney at a disadvantage and reduce the probability of getting the defendant off - and that''s the way it should be for someone who really did the crime.

Now, I am not an attorney and I am probably totally over simplifying this and I'm sure an attorney would blast my reasoning and an attorney friend of mine did just that. He alluded that without attorney client privilege, the police and the judicial system would be in bed too much together.

[AsIfYouKnew]

Are'nt all Catholic preists gay??

This post is highly offensive. What exactly are you trying to accomplish with this post?

[Luca]

Unfortunately, the answer to your question requires an understanding of American history........ which puts you at a disadvantage here, Charles.

Much of American colonization was triggered by a desire to escape religious persecution. Eventually, this led to a widespread acceptance of the belief (which, by the way, is still overwhelming) that governmental authority over religious beliefs and practices should be limited.

In fact, that principle is even embedded in the American Constitution (which is widely available on the Internet). It's in the Bill of Rights (that's the numbered part that comes after the initial text) and was considered important enough that it is in the First Amendment.

That is why that stinky thing that you mentioned exists. Of course, you might ask yourself - were you one to think that far ahead - what would happen if somehow that clause were removed. If criminals were aware that whatever they said in the process of confessing their sins would be immediately available to the police, then that might act as a disincentive to doing so, ya think? In that event, the whole exercise of abolishing the clause would be pointless.........

You might also wonder why it is that there is a Fifth Amendment. That's the one that allows you to avoid giving evidence against yourself, even if you are guilty of a crime. No doubt you question the "logic" of that one, also, given your previous reasoning.

Gosh, there's just all kind of stinky, confusing rules in the Constitution. This is one reason why we teach American history in elementary and high school.

AsIfYouKnew, his entire purpose is to offend. But, as always, his reach exceeds his grasp. Luca

[crayegg]

I love a good smackdown.

Thanks, Luca.

[Biscuit]

This post is highly offensive. What exactly are you trying to accomplish with this post?

Oh you poor victim if you cant answer the question, stay off the sidewalk!!

[Charles]

Unfortunately, the answer to your question requires an understanding of American history........ which puts you at a disadvantage here, Charles.

Much of American colonization was triggered by a desire to escape religious persecution. Eventually, this led to a widespread acceptance of the belief (which, by the way, is still overwhelming) that governmental authority over religious beliefs and practices should be limited.

In fact, that principle is even embedded in the American Constitution (which is widely available on the Internet). It's in the Bill of Rights (that's the numbered part that comes after the initial text) and was considered important enough that it is in the First Amendment.

That is why that stinky thing that you mentioned exists. Of course, you might ask yourself - were you one to think that far ahead - what would happen if somehow that clause were removed. If criminals were aware that whatever they said in the process of confessing their sins would be immediately available to the police, then that might act as a disincentive to doing so, ya think? In that event, the whole exercise of abolishing the clause would be pointless.........

You might also wonder why it is that there is a Fifth Amendment. That's the one that allows you to avoid giving evidence against yourself, even if you are guilty of a crime. No doubt you question the "logic" of that one, also, given your previous reasoning.

Gosh, there's just all kind of stinky, confusing rules in the Constitution. This is one reason why we teach American history in elementary and high school.

AsIfYouKnew, his entire purpose is to offend. But, as always, his reach exceeds his grasp. Luca

Just because it is an accepted belief or it is an amendment or it is in the constitution doesn't mean it is right or a good idea.

Also, who cares if there's a disincentive for criminals to confess their sins?

[AsIfYouKnew]

Oh you poor victim if you cant answer the question, stay off the sidewalk!!

Try to behave like an adult, would you? Stop trying to be such a boor.

[Troglodyte]

I've questioned the logic of that myself. (In fact, I thought I started an OC Connect thread on this a few months ago???) If there was no attorney client privilege then a defendant who truly did the crime would have to lie to his attorney, assuming admitting his crime to his attorney would force the attorney to disclose the admission. So, a this defendant who deserves to be found guilty will lie and put his attorney at a disadvantage and reduce the probability of getting the defendant off - and that''s the way it should be for someone who really did the crime.

Now, I am not an attorney and I am probably totally over simplifying this and I'm sure an attorney would blast my reasoning and an attorney friend of mine did just that. He alluded that without attorney client privilege, the police and the judicial system would be in bed too much together.

Don't all defendants lie to their attornies?? If they admitted their crimes, the best the attorney could do is defend his rights and go for the best deal. Some lawyers ask to be relieved from a case when their client admits guilt. A lawyer is an officer of the court, and as such is supposed to uphold and obey all laws.
A defendant is usually assumed to be lying in court An attorney will be severely punished if he is caught doing that..

[Luca]

Just because it is an accepted belief or it is an amendment or it is in the constitution doesn't mean it is right or a good idea.

Also, who cares if there's a disincentive for criminals to confess their sins?

1). This is true, but the fact that it's an accepted belief and is in the Constitution indicates it is a widely accepted concept with historical roots and if you want to change it, then the onus is upon you to come up with acceptable reasons why that should be so.

2). You miss the point, not for the first time. The point is that if clergy were required to report to the police evidence of wrongdoing that they here during confession, then criminals would no longer confess those sins to the clergy in the first place. Therefore, if you removed that immunity, you would gain nothing in terms of law enforcement because those criminal confessions would then cease. Luca

[Charles]

1). This is true, but the fact that it's an accepted belief and is in the Constitution indicates it is a widely accepted concept with historical roots and if you want to change it, then the onus is upon you to come up with acceptable reasons why that should be so.

2). You miss the point, not for the first time. The point is that if clergy were required to report to the police evidence of wrongdoing that they here during confession, then criminals would no longer confess those sins to the clergy in the first place. Therefore, if you removed that immunity, you would gain nothing in terms of law enforcement because those criminal confessions would then cease. Luca

1) You missed the point, not for the first time. The acceptable reason is that clergy providing this (any) information to the police increases the possibility that the criminal will be caught. Even if there is a reduction of admissions (see point 2 below), the priests would still be subjected to the same laws as non priests. No complications from police. No risk of hindrances. Nice and clean. No special treatment.

2) That's OK. Just remove the immunity. Priests and clergy aren't special (well, to the misguided and brainwashed I guess they are) and shouldn't be given special treatment (of guarding confessions). Why does the law requiring non-clergy to admit known crimes to the police exist? It would be no different if you the criminal admitted his crimes to his next door neighbor. So who cares if criminals' confessions to their next door neighbors cease. Your poor and not well thought out logic in point 2 above would be applicable to admitting crimes to anyone as if everyone became immune then nobody (including priests and including next door neighbors) wouldn't need to worry about reporting the admission of crimes to police.

Try to think about the topic a little bit more before you post. You are trying to sound smarter than you really are. It's not very realistic. I can see through it. Some others on this forum have sucked up to you and have fallen for your act.

[AsIfYouKnew]

1) You missed the point, not for the first time. The acceptable reason is that clergy providing this (any) information to the police increases the possibility that the criminal will be caught. Even if there is a reduction of admissions (see point 2 below), the priests would still be subjected to the same laws as non priests. No complications from police. No risk of hindrances. Nice and clean. No special treatment.

2) That's OK. Just remove the immunity. Priests and clergy aren't special (well, to the misguided and brainwashed I guess they are) and shouldn't be given special treatment (of guarding confessions). Why does the law requiring non-clergy to admit known crimes to the police exist? It would be no different if you the criminal admitted his crimes to his next door neighbor. So who cares if criminals' confessions to their next door neighbors cease. Your poor and not well thought out logic in point 2 above would be applicable to admitting crimes to anyone as if everyone became immune then nobody (including priests and including next door neighbors) wouldn't need to worry about reporting the admission of crimes to police.

Try to think about the topic a little bit more before you post. You are trying to sound smarter than you really are. It's not very realistic. I can see through it. Some others on this forum have sucked up to you and have fallen for your act.

You really are hillarious, you know that? Oh, the irony.

Mix a little foolishness with your serious plans. It is lovely to be silly at the right moment. Horace

[Luca]

1) You missed the point, not for the first time. The acceptable reason is that clergy providing this (any) information to the police increases the possibility that the criminal will be caught. Even if there is a reduction of admissions (see point 2 below), the priests would still be subjected to the same laws as non priests. No complications from police. No risk of hindrances. Nice and clean. No special treatment.

2) That's OK. Just remove the immunity. Priests and clergy aren't special (well, to the misguided and brainwashed I guess they are) and shouldn't be given special treatment (of guarding confessions). Why does the law requiring non-clergy to admit known crimes to the police exist? It would be no different if you the criminal admitted his crimes to his next door neighbor. So who cares if criminals' confessions to their next door neighbors cease. Your poor and not well thought out logic in point 2 above would be applicable to admitting crimes to anyone as if everyone became immune then nobody (including priests and including next door neighbors) wouldn't need to worry about reporting the admission of crimes to police.

Try to think about the topic a little bit more before you post. You are trying to sound smarter than you really are. It's not very realistic. I can see through it. Some others on this forum have sucked up to you and have fallen for your act.

It is no accident, Charles, that you are the only one on this thread who cannot understand why and how the current laws have evolved. At the risk of being seen through by your piercing intellect, consider the following:

1). Most people on the earth, and especially in the United States, believe in the existence of God.
2). Most people in the United States believe in the concept of limited government with constitutional restrictions.
3). If most people in the United States believe in God and believe in constitutional limits on government, it stands to reason that those people would institute laws that shield religious practices from the government.

This is the reason why there always has been immunity for the clergy in regards to, e.g., Christian confession.

Similarly, you can not be compelled to testify against yourself. A spouse (unless involving domestic violence) cannot be compelled to testify against her husband. A diplomat cannot be compelled to testify in a criminal proceeding. And if you're found innocent in trial for a crime which you are later proven to have committed, nobody can testify against you. We make these exceptions for good reasons: because there are some values held as more vital than temporal justice and we embed these concepts in law.

Now, simply because you do not believe in God or the value of religion or the clergy does not mean it's incumbent upon the majority to justify itself to you. Rather, it's incumbent upon you to explain why centuries of legal tradition should be discarded because Charles does not approve. Luca

[oceanvue]

Fun fact: Most states, California included, mandate that priests are required to report child abuse and neglect

[Charles]

Fun fact: Most states, California included, mandate that priests are required to report child abuse and neglect

Does the church go along with that? Are there any instances where a priest exposed someone (who had spoken with the priest in confidence)?

[Charles]

It is no accident, Charles, that you are the only one on this thread who cannot understand why and how the current laws have evolved. At the risk of being seen through by your piercing intellect, consider the following:

1). Most people on the earth, and especially in the United States, believe in the existence of God.
2). Most people in the United States believe in the concept of limited government with constitutional restrictions.
3). If most people in the United States believe in God and believe in constitutional limits on government, it stands to reason that those people would institute laws that shield religious practices from the government.

This is the reason why there always has been immunity for the clergy in regards to, e.g., Christian confession.

Similarly, you can not be compelled to testify against yourself. A spouse (unless involving domestic violence) cannot be compelled to testify against her husband. A diplomat cannot be compelled to testify in a criminal proceeding. And if you're found innocent in trial for a crime which you are later proven to have committed, nobody can testify against you. We make these exceptions for good reasons: because there are some values held as more vital than temporal justice and we embed these concepts in law.

Now, simply because you do not believe in God or the value of religion or the clergy does not mean it's incumbent upon the majority to justify itself to you. Rather, it's incumbent upon you to explain why centuries of legal tradition should be discarded because Charles does not approve. Luca

I don't expect the world or this country to change just because I think the current rules are wrong. Unfortunately, you are correct and most people believe in god and this irrational believing is interwoven into the legal and political landscape (just like sharia but not as hard core.) People will continue to believe and think irrationally. If enough people think irrationally then it is assumed what they believe is true. But (most likely) it isn't true. Just because something has centuries of legal tradition, doesn't mean it is right or the best, or fair. Remember, we're dealing with delusional people here - people who can't be expected to think rationally. Look at the amish who act like nut cases. Their kids accept those backwards ways and perpetuate them. Same for hardcore orthodox jews. Hardcore orthodox jewish kids wouldn't be that way (victimized) if their parents didn't brainwash them.

[BBvideo 425,350][/BBvideo]

[Luca]

Bertrand Russell once observed that "The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way."

And there is no convincing evidence either for or against the existence of God. The fact that you strongly believe in one option does not indicate that the contrary is "irrational." It means only that you cannot understand the logic behind it. The fact that the majority believe it and you do not would give most people a cause for second thoughts unless, like yourself, they are blessed with Olympian self-esteem.

You cannot propose any more rational explanation for this material world than theists can. Your perspective is so weakly grounded that you can't even attempt to do so. Hence, your only basis for referring to one side as "irrational" is that you cannot understand the opposing side of the debate. F Scott Fitzgerald stated it as:

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function."

The reason we have these laws I explained to you in perfectly comprehensible fashion but - because you can't see beyond your own ideology - you can't understand it. There are certain issues that we as a society have decided transcend prosecution: the sanctity of marriage, the rejection of double jeopardy, the importance of diplomatic immunity, and the sanctity of religious belief.

You don't like it. Fine. I don't like speed limits. But the majority understand their importance and so I live with it.

Get over it, Charles.

[oceanvue]

Bertrand Russell must have been born on "opposite day"