What a Nightmare!

[Danzo]

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

For the legal experts...could a bishop be called by the state to give testimony in a trial concerning knowledge of a crime gained through confession? Would that be hearsay?

Wouldn't be hearsay. Statements made by the the accused can always be used against him in a court of law.

Most likely the accused would claim the conversation was privileged. 

It would be the same if the persons spouse, psychologist, attorney or doctor were called to give testimony.   The testimony would be barred due to privilege.  

The law respects certain confidential communications made to certain individuals.

[rpn]

15 hours ago, rongo said:

18 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Is there a bishop who, upon hearing such a confession, would not encourage/suggest strongly that the person immediately tell the authorities ?

I think most would insist on it. But if the person refuses, and the bishop believes there is a good likelihood of further abuse/danger to others? Most here seem to argue that he cannot call authorities himself then. That's what bothers me. 

If I were the bishop, I would not even consider requiring they report themselves to the police.  (I do not believe that repentance requires forgoing one's constitutional right to remain silent.)  What I would do is require they leave the family home and never return to it or have any unsupervised contact with the children (and maybe the wife because one that isn't willing to insist on this when a bishop tells them they must never allow their children alone with dh is not in a healthy place themselves) during any period of repentance.     What I absolutely would do is require that they get into the therapy that they need --- the program most courts now have for therapy for those who have perped on children.    I would provide fast offering support for a separate home in undisclosed place if perp would not move, and costs of therapy for all concerned.   I might even pay for security for such a family at least in the short term (since I would think that better/more appropriate than putting untrained ministering people in potential harms way.

One of the reasons that these things happen is that there is no place for perps (or people who have desires) to go to get actual real help when everyone is a mandatory reporter.    If they go for therapy, they cannot tell their therapist why they are there.     Of course there is an argument that lack of willingness to accept all the consequences also interferes with repentance and makes it easier to relapse.   But reporting and prosecution brings more consequences in many cases that make it impossible for people to really repent ---- our system defines such crimes as permanently making perps pariahs, and acceptable to mistreat them forever physically and mentally and prevent NOT JUST NEW/CONTINUING Harm (which is rightly called for)  but also no opportunity for a life.    There are crimes that warrant this.   But child sexual abuse often comes from a completely different place which effective treatment and repentance can resolve, allowing children to continue relationships in healthy circumstances as they choose.

ETA:  And I'd immediately red flag the membership based on the confession, but without mentioning it.

Edited April 22, 2020 by rpn

[Danzo]

5 hours ago, Vanguard said:

Way too many legal considerations/ramifications for sure!  Though probably a bit reactionary on my part and infused with much bravado, I would rather the law pertaining to the priest-penitent privilege be eliminated when it comes to abuse of minors, dependent adults, and the elderly (as currently defined by law). That this could throw a wrench into the perpetrator's desire to come clean and/or 'his' own repentence process does not trump the overarching importance of protecting these vulnerable populations. These perpetrators still have a moral obligation to come clean despite any concerns the bishop might 'rat them out'. That so many do not confess their crime and so many loved ones keep it hushed is another topic for discussion.

are you also opposed to attorney client privilege?, Doctor patient privilege, Spousal Privilege? or is it just the priest penitent privilege?

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

Lets put the church, the bishop, and the perp out of the equation for a bit...someone needs to speak for the children.

Well, we have implemented very strict rules on dealing with children.  There must always be two adults present with a child or children.  Background checks are made.  The Church record of any member who is a molester is now annotated and he is prohibited from certain callings, etc.  What more do you recommend?

Moreover, our current experience with digital communication during this COVID-19 problem has shown that even a bishop interview with a child could as well be conducted online rather than in person.  Or a parent can be present in the same room.  The one problem with all that is that a parental molester is protected from exposure as long as the child is intimidated by their presence during an interview.  Bear in mind that molesters are usually close relatives.  The bishop is not constrained by confidentiality when told of molestation by the victim.  He can immediately notify the police or CPS.  The only time he is constrained by confidentiality is when the perpetrator confesses to him.

[rongo]

1 hour ago, rpn said:

If I were the bishop, I would not even consider requiring they report themselves to the police.  (I do not believe that repentance requires forgoing one's constitutional right to remain silent.) 

I've only had one direct confession, and he's serving a 17 year prison term (he was facing 65 years, until he decided to deal). Otherwise, I've had victims in my ward, but didn't receive the confession from the perpetrator. I also have had plenty of members with annotated records and prison records. 

What's missing in this, and usually gets overlooked because of concerns about the victims and concerns about the perpetrators' rights, is the question of true repentance. Thank you for bringing it up. 

I disagree that assuming the legal and criminal responsibility for the damage you've done is not an important part of the repentance process. If you were truly sorry unto repentance, than you would want to do everything you could to atone and make restitution to the victims and the families. Not cooperating fully with the legal process of your own accord falls short of demonstrating a broken heart and a contrite spirit, in my book. Yes, the prospect of decades in prison, lifelong sex offender status, GPS monitoring, etc. is horrifying, but it isn't less horrifying than this particular sin. And this particular sin has reverberations that ripple through generations. Denying victims and families closure by refusing to cooperate of your own free will, and making them get forensic interviews and put victims on the stand does not demonstrate repentance to me. 

The questions I would ask a perpetrator is, "Do you want to be forgiven? Are you willing to pay the price to be forgiven? Are you willing to spare your victims as much pain as possible, and to make as much restitution as it is possible for you to make?" 

I strongly agree that this initiative should come from the sinner, an no one else. But most are not willing to do what it takes to do their part, and this twists the knife for the victims and the families. In my (mostly secondhand, as I've usually only been involved on the victim end) experience, the LDS person confessing usually has expectations of receiving 40 stripes, maybe even excommunication, but never in his wildest dreams does he think when he confesses that he will be required and expected to do everything he can to make things right --- including initiating and cooperating with the legal system. And, I don't think not requiring this does anything for his soul, and little for the victims or the families. To say nothing of how the Church's reputation. 

Edited April 22, 2020 by rongo

[Anijen]

50 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Wouldn't be hearsay. Statements made by the the accused can always be used against him in a court of law.

Not quite correct (the term "always"). Hearsay is legally defined as "an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted." e.g., if the bystander said "the car went through the red light." and it was offered to prove that the car ran a red light that would be considered hearsay and could not be used in court. Furthermore, statements by the accused can and often be  not used because they were coerced (i.e. wrongful confession). If said out of court and used to prove what ever was said, then it is hearsay and barring an exception could not be used.

 

Quote

It would be the same if the persons spouse, psychologist, attorney or doctor were called to give testimony.   The testimony would be barred due to privilege.  

This is true, but there still are exceptions. For example attorney client privilege is a lot more strict than a psychologist/client. Doctors are allowed to discuss conversations in court relating to diagnosis, such as i asked the patient what happened (to aid in the diagnosis) and he replied, "Danzo ran over my foot." That statement would be allowed in court even though it was between doctor and patient and it is an out of court statement (but it is not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. It is offered as questions the doctor asked to aid in his diagnosis (one of the many hearsay exceptions)

 

Quote

The law respects certain confidential communications made to certain individuals.

Very true. There was two lawyers who knew a guy on death row was innocent because their client confessed it to them and they were instructed to never reveal that knowledge while he [the true perpetrator] was alive. After the true killer died the lawyers immediately revealed the info.

Privilege is there for the reason not to take the trust in Bishops, lawyers, etc., to keep one confessing. No one would confess a thing if they knew a blabber mouth is just going to tell someone else.

The simple rule in most jurisdictions is; if a future crime is threatened then most can reveal that, but if a past crime is confessed to then that must be kept confidential.

[rongo]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Is that really all it is?  And does LDS Church doctrine permit the devil may care treatment of confession?

I wouldn't describe this as "devil may care" at all. And, yes, I don't see any doctrinal, scriptural, or General Authority exposition on the meaning and parameters of confession in the LDS view. The handbooks simply make it clear that confidentiality is to be kept, but nowhere do we see it treated as a sacred ordinance subject to mortal sin, like in the Catholic Church. People who see it this way are reading their own views into it. I think it's simply a practical matter in our church. If the person confessing doesn't expect it to be confidential, then far fewer would be willing to confess. 

What most don't understand here is key:  If anyone making a confession is engaging in

a continuing criminal pursuit of abuse or other serious crime, the cleric is not bound by confidentiality.  Confidentiality only applies when it is confession to something that is not continuing.  The cleric cannot stand by and allow additional sexual abuse or murders, and no one expects him to.

The problem with child abuse is that the perpetrators are sick, and past abuse is usually not a one-off. There is a very real danger of recidivism. That's why we annotate records and don't allow even repentant abusers to hold callings with youth and children --- for life. In a very real sense, confession of this should be seen as "a continuing criminal pursuit of abuse" if there are children in the home or there is access to children. 

I'm not aware of anyone who has confessed to past abuse, and who says, "And, I'm still doing it. Probably will again tonight, too." Because of our imperative to protect children, our flock, and the Church's good name, I think we should use all of our influence to encourage those guilty of this to cooperate fully with the legal system. Where there is refusal to do this, they aren't really repentant. They want to make partial amends and take their stripes, maybe, but they aren't willing to do everything they can or that needs to be done. 

[webbles]

I think the first paragraph from that article is really interesting:

Quote

When a Bisbee man told his Mormon bishop he was sexually abusing his own 5-year-old daughter, the bishop provided counseling. He involved the man’s wife in the sessions, apparently hoping that knowledge of her husband’s activities would prompt her to keep their children safe.

It looks like the bishop was trying to protect the victims.  He expected the wife/mother to protect them.  She failed at that.  I wonder if the bishop knew about that.  What if he thought the wife was protecting the children and that he (the bishop) and the man were only dealing with past events?  The fact that he brought in the wife to protect the children but didn't bring any one else in later makes me think that he wasn't aware of the on going abuse.  Because, if the wife mentions the abuse in the counseling sessions, then I believe that would require notifying the authorities.

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, webbles said:

I think the first paragraph from that article is really interesting:

It looks like the bishop was trying to protect the victims.  He expected the wife/mother to protect them.  She failed at that.  I wonder if the bishop knew about that.  What if he thought the wife was protecting the children and that he (the bishop) and the man were only dealing with past events?  The fact that he brought in the wife to protect the children but didn't bring any one else in later makes me think that he wasn't aware of the on going abuse.  Because, if the wife mentions the abuse in the counseling sessions, then I believe that would require notifying the authorities.

I thought that too, but re-reading makes it sound like the counseling came from the bishop.

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, webbles said:

I think the first paragraph from that article is really interesting:

It looks like the bishop was trying to protect the victims.  He expected the wife/mother to protect them.  She failed at that.  I wonder if the bishop knew about that.  What if he thought the wife was protecting the children and that he (the bishop) and the man were only dealing with past events?  The fact that he brought in the wife to protect the children but didn't bring any one else in later makes me think that he wasn't aware of the on going abuse.  Because, if the wife mentions the abuse in the counseling sessions, then I believe that would require notifying the authorities.

It would depend on whether he knew the man still lived in the home with the kids, or whether he believed he was living apart from them.

I don't fault the bishops. They did the best they could, and they acted on what they were told to do by the hotline.

A question I wonder about: the bishops are being sued, not the Church. I'm assuming the Church is paying for their defense. If they lose, does the Church pay the damages?

I'm sure that the Church will just settle and make this go away, but then again, it is the bishops, and not the Church being sued. How does that work, then? Are they on their own, on an island, if they lose?

[Tacenda]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

A lot of people are mandated reporters, but not in the clergy confessional.  Apparently six states have an exception, but only for child abuse.  All the other states maintain strict confidentiality, except in case of a continuing criminal enterprise.

"Mandated" doesn't mean mandatory.

I'm aware of that. But the quote I posted represents Arizona specifically. It's saying that in Arizona the law classifies clergy as mandatory reporters, with the exception of the bold below. Doesn't that stand out to you? Why would Kirton and McConkie not tell the bishops to report? Child abuse like in this case, isn't reasonable at all within the concepts of religion right? I'm more than happy to have you explain, if wrong. 

What the bishop didn’t do was report the abuse to police. He didn’t have to. Although Arizona law classifies clergy, as well as many others, as mandatory reporters of child abuse, there is an exception for clergy to not report if they believe it is “reasonable and necessary within the concepts of the religion.”

[Amulek]

16 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I'm aware of that. But the quote I posted represents Arizona specifically. It's saying that in Arizona the law classifies clergy as mandatory reporters, with the exception of the bold below. Doesn't that stand out to you? Why would Kirton and McConkie not tell the bishops to report? Child abuse like in this case, isn't reasonable at all within the concepts of religion right? I'm more than happy to have you explain, if wrong. 

What the bishop didn’t do was report the abuse to police. He didn’t have to. Although Arizona law classifies clergy, as well as many others, as mandatory reporters of child abuse, there is an exception for clergy to not report if they believe it is “reasonable and necessary within the concepts of the religion.”

To paraphrase the great Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that quote. I do not think it means what you think it means."

It isn't child abuse which is being deemed "reasonable and necessary within the concepts of the religion;" its the confidence of the confessional that is deemed "reasonable and necessary." 

Sorry, but Kirton and McConkie didn't miss anything here. 

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I thought that too, but re-reading makes it sound like the counseling came from the bishop.

We don't know how honest and open about the home situation either the perpetrator or his wife were with the bishop as far as I know.  Isn't the interaction just reported as  a confession without details?  Exactly what was confessed and whether he and/or his wife presented it as a past behaviour he was controlling and/or she was supervising is unknown.  We also don't know if the wife pushed the bishop not to report it as often happens.  Given that she is serving time after pleading no contest (though pushing for leniency by blaming counsel received by church leaders) and iirc gave up all custody rights to all six of her kids it seems pretty much immediately since they are all already adopted, I think there are big questions about the mother's behaviour.

Edited April 22, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

I am reading the transcript from the sentencing hearing of the mother.  The father is reported by the Homeland officer as bragging in a chat room that he had the "perfect lifestyle" in that he could have sex with his daughters and his wife doesn't care and she knows.

If I get the timing right, it appears Adams confessed to the first bishop not long after he first assaulted his eldest daughter in 2012.  If this was the only actual confession (not specified but the way it is discussed in the news reports it seems implied to me) and the bishop is counseling based on the assumption the counseling is working because there are no further confessions and the mother is not saying anything either, I can see how that inaccurate knowledge of the abuse might factor into choosing to report him or not.

I just started so there may be more details, but the document does not list either bishop as a witness.  I will see if I can find where they did, but iirc one article said that was sealed at this time.

Added:  the mother's behaviour is noted as unusual by the agent, she appeared more concerned with getting the kids' backpacks than with the accusation/reason for the search and comforting the kids.  He also reported minimal interaction with her children by her.  The defense also submitted an evaluation that she may have Asperger's to some degree.

It comes across as an unusual situation in both parents' behaviours.  

A picture of Adams from 2012 has him without a beard and even though he is 32, he looks like he is in his early 20's to me.  Wonder if that contributed to people believing the better of him when they shouldn't have.

added:  she told the police first she had rules that her daughters could not be left alone with Adams and then when asked why just the daughters, expanded it to all the kids.  She gave the reasoning she had been a victim herself and did not want it to happen to her daughters...this was in a “free talk” where any admission wouldn’t have been held against her (they were after her husband).  Her reasons for the rules changed as she was pressed, she was denying any knowledge of abuse by her husband.  She admitted to destroying any evidence she found (shredded it) after her husband was arrested. Also rendered her own phone inoperable by ‘accident’.

Her reaction to seeing the pornography was apparently no reaction, “didn’t even bat an eye”.  Emotionless.

Police learned she knew due to a Border Patrol friend reporting she had told her in early 2010 (dates are a bit weird as Adams said abuse started 5 or 6 years before arrest in 2017, so maybe abuse had occurred for up to two years at the time of his confession to the bishop or it was within a short time depending on what date is accurate).  The friend was the one who told about the bishop as well.

I don’t see this woman as a credible witness against the bishops as she is too concerned with making herself look good rather than protecting her kids imo, so I hope I can find their own testimonies. 

Edited April 22, 2020 by Calm

[Vanguard]

4 hours ago, Danzo said:

are you also opposed to attorney client privilege?, Doctor patient privilege, Spousal Privilege? or is it just the priest penitent privilege?

Do each of those privileges listed allow the report of abuse (child, dependent, elderly) to remain confidential? I know the doctor-patient privilege does not. What about your other examples?

[Fair Dinkum]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Of course they expect backlash, but that tells us nothing about the confidentiality of priest-penitent privilege.   It only tells us about lack of legal and religious understanding of the hoi polloi.  Someone has to be blamed, and so you make the claim that it is a church trying to protect itself instead of a focus on the principle involved.  That surely does happen, and we have seen it practiced in extremis by the Roman Catholic Church, but is that all there is?  That you should characterize it as an effort to protect the perp entirely misses the point of that counsel (not council).  The advice to remain silent is actually the correct advice, both legally and religiously.

What exactly is the purpose of correcting my grammatical errors? And this is not the first time you've done this, so there seems to be some need on your part to act the part of the superior teacher feeling the need to correct the inferior student.   It's really quite off putting. 

[Danzo]

3 hours ago, Anijen said:

Not quite correct (the term "always"). Hearsay is legally defined as "an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted." e.g., if the bystander said "the car went through the red light." and it was offered to prove that the car ran a red light that would be considered hearsay and could not be used in court. Furthermore, statements by the accused can and often be  not used because they were coerced (i.e. wrongful confession). If said out of court and used to prove what ever was said, then it is hearsay and barring an exception could not be used.

 

Opposing  party statements are defined as non hearsay.

from the Federal Rules of evidence Section 801 

(d) Statements That Are Not Hearsay. A statement that meets the following conditions is not hearsay:

. . . 

(2) An Opposing Party’s Statement. The statement is offered against an opposing party and:

(A) was made by the party in an individual or representative capacity;

(B) is one the party manifested that it adopted or believed to be true;

(C) was made by a person whom the party authorized to make a statement on the subject;

(D) was made by the party’s agent or employee on a matter within the scope of that relationship and while it existed; or

(E) was made by the party’s coconspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.

 

This is why "anything you say can be used against you in a court of law"

 

Edited April 22, 2020 by Danzo

[Islander]

23 hours ago, rongo said:

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-child-welfare/2020/04/21/bisbee-man-confesses-hes-molesting-his-daughter-church-tells-bishop-not-report-abuse/2876617001/

I've never really liked how Church legal handles reporting (it varies by jurisdiction), and I've wondered about conflict between what a bishop is told to do and doing what he feels he should, when there is a conflict. 

I feel really bad for the bishops, because I know from experience that the counsel received is "Don't report this." I know that there are issues of confidentiality, but I think that if this happened to me, I would tell the person that if he didn't turn himself in, then I would. And, I know that this is contrary to what the abuse hotline tells them. 

These are extremely complicated and painful cases. I am still researching the legal issues here in my State, just for my own curiosity. In my opinion, the religious exemption should not apply when: there is evidence or the risk of continuous danger or abuse of the children. I believe that there is a compelling reason and interest by the Church and the State to protect the children above and beyond the "rights" or opportunity for redemption of the perpetrator. 

From a clinical standpoint,  sex offenders that are fixated in infants and very small children are quite intractable, socially more sophisticated (than those with rape-violence histories) and thus more difficult to detect. The easy access and physical proximity to the victims makes it impossible for the offender to abstain from both almost constant sexual ideation and actual physical stimuli (touching the victims). In sum, I believe that it could be argued that it was negligent not to have sought, at least,  forensic consultation in order to evaluate the potential risks(to the children) in the case. I think the Bishops are likely to lose this one, I'm afraid. Let's wait and see what happens. 

[Danzo]

29 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

Do each of those privileges listed allow the report of abuse (child, dependent, elderly) to remain confidential? I know the doctor-patient privilege does not. What about your other examples?

The law of privileges varies from state to state doctor patient privilege does exist in some states.

in my state Doctors and attorneys are not required to report privileged information

"419B.010 Duty of officials to report child abuse; exceptions; penalty. (1) Any public or private official having reasonable cause to believe that any child with whom the official comes in contact has suffered abuse or that any person with whom the official comes in contact has abused a child shall immediately report or cause a report to be made in the manner required in ORS 419B.015. Nothing contained in ORS 40.225 to 40.295 or 419B.234 (6) affects the duty to report imposed by this section, except that a psychiatrist, psychologist, member of the clergy, attorney or guardian ad litem appointed under ORS 419B.231 is not required to report such information communicated by a person if the communication is privileged under ORS 40.225 to 40.295 or 419B.234 (6). An attorney is not required to make a report under this section by reason of information communicated to the attorney in the course of representing a client if disclosure of the information would be detrimental to the client."

 

Edited April 22, 2020 by Danzo

[rpn]

4 hours ago, rongo said:

I disagree that assuming the legal and criminal responsibility for the damage you've done is not an important part of the repentance process. If you were truly sorry unto repentance, than you would want to do everything you could to atone and make restitution to the victims and the families. Not cooperating fully with the legal process of your own accord falls short of demonstrating a broken heart and a contrite spirit, in my book. Yes, the prospect of decades in prison, lifelong sex offender status, GPS monitoring, etc. is horrifying, but it isn't less horrifying than this particular sin. And this particular sin has reverberations that ripple through generations. Denying victims and families closure by refusing to cooperate of your own free will, and making them get forensic interviews and put victims on the stand does not demonstrate repentance to me. 

I don't disagree that repentance includes pleading guilty.    I just don't believe it includes giving up one's constitutional right to not go confess to police.

[Danzo]

35 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

Do each of those privileges listed allow the report of abuse (child, dependent, elderly) to remain confidential? I know the doctor-patient privilege does not. What about your other examples?

In my state privilege can be asserted to block testimony of child abuse for everyone I listed.

Privilege is easily misunderstood.  Its not the Clergy (or doctor, or attorney or spouse) that owns the privilege.  It is the person confessing to those people that own the privilege.

If privileged information improperly disclosed to the government it can cause all evidence obtained by that confession to be excluded causing the abuser to go free.

In this case, if the bishop thought he was doing everyone a favor and report the abuse, his very action could cause the abuser to go free (as well as potentially being exposed to lawsuits himself and for the church).

 

 

[Danzo]

10 minutes ago, rpn said:

I don't disagree that repentance includes pleading guilty.    I just don't believe it includes giving up one's constitutional right to not go confess to police.

No one should ever confess to the police.

Confession is for the Judge.

[JamesBYoung]

I’m wondering if there’s a word in the English language that describes the behavior of someone who’s dependably quick to believe the best about an organization and defend that organization despite evidence that some matters have gone wrong, such as refusing to report criminal matters to the police?

What Catholic priests do is up to them.  What members of Bishoprics and Stake Presidencies and all their counselors in terms of reporting child abuse is every church member's concern.

[Calm]

Report of Homeland agent of what the Bishop told him...

Family was seen as “being off and weird” by many at church. No indication of abuse occurring though. 
 

Looks like Adams may have confessed during a recommend interview, it is deceived as occurring during a counseling session the bishop does “about topics to see if they need any help”.  The wife was outside and the bishop brought her in once he heard this. Gave a date of 2011 or 12.  Adams gave detail of taking pictures of the abuse and doing it “numerous times”.

Okay, at this point if this is an accurate portrayal of what happened, I am clueless as to why the bishop didn’t report him if he had a choice as appears he did from what has been reported so far. I think he deserves to be sued. 
 

Bishop reported the mother as emotionally dead while hearing the details. 
 

Bishop did not consider calling the police. Gave the mother the option to have him turn himself in. She chose to keep the  children away from Adams instead. 
 

Bishop says he did not believe she was successful because Adams admitted he was continuing to abuse his daughter. He talked with both multiple times and this was continued with next bishop  if I understand correctly. 
 

Adams was excommunicated for the abuses of his daughter (as the younger hadn’t been born yet), apparently in or before 2013.  The mother was present during the process.  The mother claimed to the police it was because he had a relationship with his mother,  it the abuse of their children. She is definitely out there. 
 

The agent reported the mother had both friends and the Church and ward willing to help her and the kids leave the situation.  She had told her friend she was afraid of Adams, but not the investigators. 

Edited April 22, 2020 by Calm

[Vanguard]

32 minutes ago, Danzo said:

The law of privileges varies from state to state doctor patient privilege does exist in some states.

in my state Doctors and attorneys are not required to report privileged information

"419B.010 Duty of officials to report child abuse; exceptions; penalty. (1) Any public or private official having reasonable cause to believe that any child with whom the official comes in contact has suffered abuse or that any person with whom the official comes in contact has abused a child shall immediately report or cause a report to be made in the manner required in ORS 419B.015. Nothing contained in ORS 40.225 to 40.295 or 419B.234 (6) affects the duty to report imposed by this section, except that a psychiatrist, psychologist, member of the clergy, attorney or guardian ad litem appointed under ORS 419B.231 is not required to report such information communicated by a person if the communication is privileged under ORS 40.225 to 40.295 or 419B.234 (6). An attorney is not required to make a report under this section by reason of information communicated to the attorney in the course of representing a client if disclosure of the information would be detrimental to the client."

 

I think there should be a distinction between priest-penitent and the rest. In the case of p-p, there should be no member privilege. Do you agree?