Should our legal system continue to respect priviledged communications??

[The Heretic]

I am not talking about communications between a person and their lawyer - such communication must be kept private for our legal system to work. I am talking about communications between a person and their clergyman, or their doctor.

If someone confesses a horrible crime to their priest or their doctor - should that communication be "priviledged"?

If you were a member of the clergy, or a doctor, and someone told you that they raped and murdered a little girl, would you keep quiet or would you turn them in?

What benefits to society do you think this "priviledged" communication serves?

 

[Guest]

I'm the Green river killer.

 

[Zmey]

*Homer's voice* Say what what and a what what?

 

[modest mouse]

Great question, STG.

The privacy one has with his/her doctor isnt going anywhere. Its a strict matter of privacy rights as far as medical info goes. Yes, far too many have access to our wedical files but I dont think medical info will become as 'public' as some fear. (scarily, that mostly because it will nto need to be public as a simple test will reveal so much)

If you are extending what docotrs will pass along to police or other agencies ina non-medical situation... I do not know how that will change in the near future.

Clergymen have always been aslipperyslope. COmmunication with a pSychologist, etc is obviously protected but is a clergyman an extension of that? Yes and no. Its a grey area that is constantly subject to interpretation.

Clergymen can find themselves in many difficult positions. It seems that unless a circumstance is truly out of control or could possibly prevent further harm.. they may contact authorities. But overall they provide an ear to their constituents and removing that causes many problems.

But bottom line is thats its one citizen to another so its hard to delineate alegal standing.

Privacy is the[/i] issue of the next 10-20 years. Every decision will build upon another. We must be careful as we manipulate laws and common practice.

 

[ma_guy]

I think the 3 relationships mentioned (lawyers, doctors and clergy) are all theer for the same general purpose but with slightly different twists.

A lawyer needs to know the truth before they can properly represent their client. If an accused knew what they said could be held against them we'd have quite a few situations where they'd lie to their own lawyers (not that that doesn't happen now..) and representation would be all but naught.

The idea was extended to doctors to encourage people to reveal very personal and often embarassing things so that they could get proper medical treatment which quite often provided a significant public health service. Someone with syphilis could seek treatment without fear and get treated instead of keeping the illness secret and end up spreading it around further..

With clergy you run into a slightly different issue. This one is 2 phased. Clergy often acts as a "spiritual counsler" so you maintain the same type of relationship there that you might have with a shrink. Some religions also have "confesion" as a rite within their faith. If the clergy isn't provided with some measure of protection against disclosure then you have the governmnet interferring with religious practices which violates the 1st Amendment of our Constitution. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". As much as religion is supposed to be kept out of government, government is supposed to be kept out of religion as well. You can't lose one side of this equation without losing the other too. I'd rather maintain the seperation than remove the priviledged communications.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

There is an overlapping legal/moral concept that says that private communication is no longer priviledged, when it is an admission of hurting or intending to hurt others.

 

[teddybear4play]

I thought the law said that the state couldn't compel someone to testify priveleged information. Which means that if they so choose, people in positions of privelege can volunteer to testify.

Right?

TB4p

 

[Mia62]

If someone confesses a horrible crime to their priest or their doctor - should that communication be "priviledged"?

If you were a member of the clergy, or a doctor, and someone told you that they raped and murdered a little girl, would you keep quiet or would you turn them in?

What benefits to society do you think this "priviledged" communication serves?

Forgive me if I am wrong...but I thought there was a clause that excluded the confession of murder to anyone but a lawyer?

Also, though...when one confesses to a priest, they are not confessing to the priest himself as a man...they are confessing to God with the priest being the medium for communication.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

I thought the law said that the state couldn't compel someone to testify priveleged information. Which means that if they so choose, people in positions of privelege can volunteer to testify.

Right?

TB4p

I think they can be compelled, but only in teh interest of public safety. For instance, if I tell a priest that I have planted a bomb somewhere, he is legally obligated to inform the police. That's what I gather from watching Law & Order, anyways.