quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I have heard from several bishops that the rule on child abuse for then is the same as it is for teachers. If you have any reason to suspect a child is being abused, report to CPS. Mandatory reporters. I am told this is laid out clearly in the bishops handbook. Reporting to CPs is not the sameas testifying in court and can even be done anonymously.
Yep, I was a mandatory reporter. I recall reporting at least two cases my boss refused to report- illegally. Many years ago.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aros: I'd argue that from a religious or moralistic point of view, it's a greater thing to hurt your family than it is to hurt a stranger.
I would say that, from a religious or moralistic point of view - at least from a Christian point of view - that this is completely wrong.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does "privileged" mean that the courts can't use the information or does it mean that the court can't compel the information?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
There is a state to state difference though as some states explicitly forbid reporting even child abuse if the abuser is the one who confesses.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Does "privileged" mean that the courts can't use the information or does it mean that the court can't compel the information?
Privileged generally means that if the information comes from a privileged source that: 1. It is not admissible as evidence in court. 2. Any evidence directly gained as a result of privileged information is also inadmissible.
The general idea is that individuals confessing illegal acts to clergy have a reasonable expectation that their confessions will remain private. Many churches impose stiff penalties against clergy who violate this, particularly churches that view confession as a central tenant.
I do believe that clergy can provide anonymous information that leads a police investigation to evidence of a crime and remain admissible as evidence, but I think that depends heavily on state law. However, anonymous tips cannot be used as a sole evidence in court without the tip provider being compelled to testify in court (which usually results in the tip provider never really being anonymous), due to the defendant's right to face their accuser. So it's kind of a sticky area. A skilled lawyer could probably have a field day with some of those situations.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
There is a state to state difference though as some states explicitly forbid reporting even child abuse if the abuser is the one who confesses.
I think that situation with the Bishop is a unique one, where the victim actually came to the bishop, rather than the abuser. In such a situation, the Bishop most definitely should have reported the incident to the police and instructed the girl to do so as well. If a victim discloses to clergy, clergy have a responsibility to involve authorities. If an abuser does so, constitutional law will often prohibit them from being able to do so legally.
Edit to add: I should also note that I'm not a lawyer...so don't take it from me. I've just been digging in a lot of law stuff lately and watching *way* too much Law and Order on Netflix. Some religious organizations have stiff penalties for clergy who break confessional privacy. I don't think the LDS church does, but I do believe the church can be civilly liable for damages if a bishop or other leader does so.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boris: If an abuser does so, constitutional law will often prohibit them from being able to do so legally.
I believe you have this a little backwards. The priest is protected from being forced to testify against the abuser (and what an abuser says may be inadmissible in the court of law), but the law does not prohibit the priest from telling others what he has been told in confidence. It does not protect the criminal, it protects the priest, and the integrity of the church's internal rules.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boris: If an abuser does so, constitutional law will often prohibit them from being able to do so legally.
I believe you have this a little backwards. The priest is protected from being forced to testify against the abuser (and what an abuser says may be inadmissible in the court of law), but the law does not prohibit the priest from telling others what he has been told in confidence. It does not protect the criminal, it protects the priest, and the integrity of the church's internal rules.
I miswrote with this:
quote: If an abuser does so, constitutional law will often prohibit them from being able to do so legally.
It's not illegal for clergy to reveal information from a confessional environment. It is, however, not possible to use that type of confession in court, and defense lawyers would likely have means to disqualify evidence obtained as a result of such a disclosure. Of course, circumstances allowing disclosure exist, but they are limited by state law.
Also, while a priest could conceivably disclose confessions to a third party, that third party could also not testify in court due to hearsay laws.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not in all cases- there are exceptions to the hearsay rule. Point is- priests are perfectly able, legally, to warn the authorities that someone is being abused. Police can investigate the matter themselves. The church decides not to do so- for many reasons.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So are you saying that church leaders can report any crime (or is this only the case with abuse?) but they aren't legally required to do so? And that their testimony will hold up in court?
Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aros: I'd argue that from a religious or moralistic point of view, it's a greater thing to hurt your family than it is to hurt a stranger.
I would say that, from a religious or moralistic point of view - at least from a Christian point of view - that this is completely wrong.
I would have hoped that at least the ideal would be the latter. The former sounds incredibly selfish, especially in the context of what we were discussing. (i.e. It being more excusable for your spouse to commit one of the crimes that we were discussing than for them to commit adultery)
quote:Originally posted by Aros:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: For rape, assault, manslaughter, I had in mind acts that would be reasonably tried and convicted under the Canadian Criminal Code. For torture, I had in mind norms from international law, like the UN Convention on torture.
How about if your community had $1000 to spend on education and could either use that to either eliminate one case of manslaughter that happens in your community per year or eliminate one case of adultery, which would you pick?
Manslaughter should generally be grouped with murder, making it worse than adultery. Let's drop this one.
Conversation has moved on, but I have to note that manslaughter is in fact distinct from murder
quote:Manslaughter is a distinct crime and is not considered a lesser degree of murder. The essential distinction between the two offenses is that malice aforethought must be present for murder, whereas it must be absent for manslaughter. Manslaughter is not as serious a crime as murder. On the other hand, it is not a justifiable or excusable killing for which little or no punishment is imposed.
So for example, if it be worse for a person to kill someone while drunk driving or to commit adultery.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn: So are you saying that church leaders can report any crime (or is this only the case with abuse?) but they aren't legally required to do so? And that their testimony will hold up in court?
No, not really. Church leaders *can* legally report crimes confessed to (and must report conspiracies or confessions of a crime to be committed), but it is not likely this confession can directly contribute to a conviction. However, the paradigm of clergy not revealing crimes to police is internal to the church- it is not a legal requirement. The legal privilege extends to the confessor and the person being confessed to, that the information cannot be used, nor required to be revealed.
However there are exceptions. For example, if the clergyman were to share the confession as a dying declaration. But still, it is likely that the expectation of confidentiality precludes that being usd as evidence.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
