Never trust a chaplain!

[Too Few Lions]

I read this today that I thought was rather shocking, assuming it's true! It's about a homicide that happened last December in the same part of Bristol that I live in, hence it's a story I find interesting.

Apparently the suspect confessed to the prison chaplain, who'd promised that the conversation would be kept private and confidential. However, upon finding out that the suspect wasn't religious, therefore it couldn't be deemed a religious confession, the chaplain felt free to tell his superiors of the confession!

Obviously it was a terrible crime and the killer will get a long sentence, I just find it shocking that the chaplain would have kept stum for a believer but not for a non-believer. Guess the moral of the tale is never trust a chaplain...

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/joanna-jurors-see-mortuary-photo-104059231.html

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/10/19/jo-yeates-trial-vincent-tabak-confided-to-prison-chaplain-he-killed-her-115875-23498447/

[Ildiko]

Yeah, I saw that and wondered about it. The Guardian, I think it was, said that the chaplain (Salvation Army) reported it to "a superior" who passed it on to a prison officer.  Maybe he'd have done better with an RC chaplain?

[Sandra Craft]

Honestly, I'm more upset about the idea that the confession of a religious person would be kept confidential.

[Whitney]

Honestly, I'm more upset about the idea that the confession of a religious person would be kept confidential.

Me too...they should only be allowed the same level of confidentiality that is granted therapists; in that they have to tell if the person did or plans to do something bad.

[Asmodean]

I think any confession of a crime should be reported to proper authorities. Heavy conscience..? Tough luck. Go turn yourself in and pay the price if you can't live with yourself without making your misdeeds known. That be how I see it.

[DeterminedJuliet]

Honestly, I'm more upset about the idea that the confession of a religious person would be kept confidential.

Really, though!

[OldGit]

Mr Brotherton said he decided he could not keep the information secret because Tabak was not religious.

This is what nauseates me.  If the chaplain felt obliged to pass it on, he should have warned Tabak before Tabak could tell him.  If not, he could have reassured Tabak.  But to decide afterwards on those grounds is IMO as repulsive as it is mad.

[Too Few Lions]

Mr Brotherton said he decided he could not keep the information secret because Tabak was not religious.

This is what nauseates me.  If the chaplain felt obliged to pass it on, he should have warned Tabak before Tabak could tell him.  If not, he could have reassured Tabak.  But to decide afterwards on those grounds is IMO as repulsive as it is mad.

I agree 100%

[Ecurb Noselrub]

As a pastor, I feel that the chaplain violated his ethical duty. Even though the man was not a believer, he confided in the chaplain knowing that he was a minister, and the chaplain promised to keep the matter private.  The chaplain should have kept the confidence.

In Texas, there are certain matters that are not confidential under any circumstances - the primary one being child abuse.  Anyone receiving a report of child abuse or suspected child abuse must report it by law, whether clergyman, attorney, physician, or whatever.  I'm interested in this type of case because here at the hospital where I work, one of my duties is to act as a faciliator in a small group of medical, nursing and chaplaincy students (our hospital is a teaching hospital and associates with a medical school and a nursing school) in a medical ethics class.  We use an interdisciplinary approach to health care, so all these students are thrown into the ethics discussion together.  Each of the disciplines has it's own ethical standards and guidelines, and confidentiality is one of the main issues we grapple with.  

[Norfolk And Chance]

Why should any chaplain keep any confession of any murder, whether by a religious or non religious person, private?

How is it "unethical" that the chaplain broke that confidence? It is absurd in the first place that you can go to a chaplain, tell him what you want, and he is OK to keep his mouth shut, because religion says he can.

This nonsense needs to stop.

[Asmodean]

Why should any chaplain keep any confession of any murder, whether by a religious or non religious person, private?

How is it "unethical" that the chaplain broke that confidence? It is absurd in the first place that you can go to a chaplain, tell him what you want, and he is OK to keep his mouth shut, because religion says he can.

This nonsense needs to stop.

Thank you. Apparently, Club Asmo is growing 

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Why should any chaplain keep any confession of any murder, whether by a religious or non religious person, private?

How is it "unethical" that the chaplain broke that confidence? It is absurd in the first place that you can go to a chaplain, tell him what you want, and he is OK to keep his mouth shut, because religion says he can.

This nonsense needs to stop.

It's because of the expectation of confidentiality.  It really doesn't depend on religion.  It has more to do with essential fairness.  If someone thinks there is a safe zone, and goes to that zone to spill his guts, the zone ought to remain safe.  It doesn't matter if it's attorney-client, priest-penitent, or physician-patient. Once the rules are set, they ought to be inviolable.  If confidentiality is not the rule, then let's say so and be done with it, as we have (in Texas) in the case of child abuse.

[Norfolk And Chance]

There should be no safe zone for murderers.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

There should be no safe zone for murderers.

Then that should be made clear.  So far, society does not agree with you.  It allows people to trust in certain relationships.  If that is not going to be the rule, then it should be made clear.  Then people won't trust in their lawyers and chaplains any more.  Think about the consequences of that. 

[Asmodean]

Then people won't trust in their lawyers and chaplains any more.  Think about the consequences of that. 

I don't really see any beyond lawyers not being told a few details and thus possibly working wrong angle on some cases.