People think things like the attorney-client and the physician-patient privilege against disclosure results in guilty people going free. And it does. And as Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy once said, we judges don't like it either, but we have no choice. But as I have been telling people for some time now, there is no direct harm that ever comes from that. Even if the offender did something very wrong like hurt someone, that doesn't mean he will reoffend. I was surprised to read online recently that that actually rarely happens for almost all crimes, reoffending. Even if they are serious. And offending and reoffending are not the same thing. Some Supreme Court justices have even claimed they are. No they are not. They are worlds apart. And I was also surprised to learn a while back, that privileged communications often prevent more crime than they cause. Like with the Marital Communication Privilege, or Husband-Wife Privilege. In the Law Dictionary, Steven H. Gifis writes about the Marital Communication Privilege "Its purpose is to preserve the marital status and to encourage free and open communication and confidence between spouses." In other words so spouses can confide in each other openly and honestly. And often prevent future misdeeds this way. Much like lawyers often give advice. Societies in which people have much fewer rights may be safer. But they lose so much more that way. And they are usually much less happier that way. People in societies like that usually immigrate in great numbers to western countries like the US, Canada and places in Europe. But almost never is the opposite true. Plus modern democracies are beginning to realize. The causes of social problems like crime are very complex. And include things like finding the underlying causes and prevention, not just punishing the actions once they have been done.
Yeah, I heard about that. What's that all about? About half the Supreme Court is Catholic (Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor). But I remember the Court was majority Catholic when this became an issue. (What? A ruling in a case perhaps?) I also read that priest-penitent privilege goes back to English common law. I guess when England was Catholic. So what is the current ruling on that? Priest-penitent privilege IOW? Anyone know?
From the church perspective it is privilege regardless of secular laws. A priest should refuse to divulge even at the cost of prison or other legal consequence.
Clergy-Penitent Privilege Also known as the priest-penitent privilege. A form of privilege that protects from disclosure to third parties communications between a member of the clergy and a person who seeks spiritual counseling. A person seeking to invoke the clergy-penitent privilege typically must show that: The communication was made to a clergy member. The clergy member was acting in a spiritual capacity. The person reasonably expected the communication to remain confidential. A clergy member may be a priest, minister, rabbi, or similar figure of a religious organization. https://content.next.westlaw.com/pr...1e28578f7ccc38dcbee/Clergy-Penitent-Privilege
