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/
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?
Honestly, I'm more upset about the idea that the confession of a religious person would be kept confidential.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 19, 2011, 06:20:01 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 19, 2011, 06:20:01 PM
Honestly, I'm more upset about the idea that the confession of a religious person would be kept confidential.
Really, though!
QuoteMr 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.
Quote from: OldGit on October 20, 2011, 10:26:02 AM
QuoteMr 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%
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.
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.
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on October 23, 2011, 02:58:08 PM
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 ;D
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on October 23, 2011, 02:58:08 PM
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.
There should be no safe zone for murderers.
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on October 24, 2011, 01:07:32 AM
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.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 24, 2011, 02:13:18 AM
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.
Quote from: Asmodean on October 24, 2011, 07:56:15 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 24, 2011, 02:13:18 AM
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.
It undermines the entire adversarial system of law in common law countries, for one thing. The attorney plays a role - that of a champion for the accused. If the accused can't trust him, the system breaks down. The adversarial system recognizes that no one is going to objectively seek the truth, because everyone has their own biases. So it simply acknowledges that human weakness, and lets the champions fight it out in court. Take away the implicit trust that an accused has toward his attorney, and you impede the champion's ability to fight for his client. The end result of this role play probably comes closer to actual truth than a system based upon some supposed objective fact-finding inquiry by a tribunal.
Tricky ethics, this. On one hand you have a confessor who confided in you, but on the other you have the victim's family who suffer until they get some form of closure. Sometimes it can be difficult to reconcile the two and get a good enough result for both.
Firstly, I agree with what others have said that the chaplain told his supervisor because the guy wasn't religious is absurd. Meaning that if he was religious, then it would've been kept a secret?! WTF?!
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 01, 2011, 02:36:29 AM
Quote from: Asmodean on October 24, 2011, 07:56:15 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 24, 2011, 02:13:18 AM
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.
It undermines the entire adversarial system of law in common law countries, for one thing. The attorney plays a role - that of a champion for the accused. If the accused can't trust him, the system breaks down. The adversarial system recognizes that no one is going to objectively seek the truth, because everyone has their own biases. So it simply acknowledges that human weakness, and lets the champions fight it out in court. Take away the implicit trust that an accused has toward his attorney, and you impede the champion's ability to fight for his client.
The end result of this role play probably comes closer to actual truth than a system based upon some supposed objective fact-finding inquiry by a tribunal.
What happens in the case where the lawyer
knows that their client is guilty but the client doesn't want to plead guilty?
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on November 01, 2011, 04:19:34 PM
What happens in the case where the lawyer knows that their client is guilty but the client doesn't want to plead guilty?
The defence attorney, if he's worth his salary, then lies, cheats and steals in order to comform the legal system to the demands of his case. And many attorneys who are in fact worth their salaries often succeed in getting their guilty clients off the hook.
Me, I don't subscribe to the "Better let ten scumbags go free than toss one innocent in jail", so I dislike that practice.
Quote from: xSilverPhinxWhat happens in the case where the lawyer knows that their client is guilty but the client doesn't want to plead guilty?
In the UK, the theory is that the solicitor (general low-rank lawyer) knows whether or not the client is guilty, but the barrister (lawyer who pleads in court) is not told, so he never has to lie.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flyingpigmusic.com%2Fimages%2Fflyingpig.gif&hash=b6e6803112ae01c84a2e91c9100bd93d84558386)
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on November 01, 2011, 04:19:34 PM
What happens in the case where the lawyer knows that their client is guilty but the client doesn't want to plead guilty?
In the American system, the attorney is a role-player, not a truth-seeker. His role is to be the champion for his client. His ethical obligation is to seek the best interests of his client, within the bounds of the law and professional ethics. He is not to lie to the court, but he can object and spin the evidence and make whatever arguments the evidence, by extension, may allow. It's up to the judge to decide what evidence is admitted and what arguments are allowed. It's up to the prosecutor to present the evidence in favor of guilt and to make the arguments that convince the jury of such. It's up to the jury to decide the fact. Everyone has his/her role, and the ultimate end of the drama is (hopefully) justice. It works pretty well.
If I know the client is guilty, 1) I try to get the best deal for him I can and try to convince him to take it; 2) if that doesn't work, I come up with the best theory, consistent with the evidence, that I can. The attorney for Casey Anthony did the latter to perfection, and got an acquittal.
Why are there jury trials anyways..? Would it not be better to leave the verdicts to professionals in law or at least like... Psychology..?
Who is less likely to be bent, 12 morons or 2 lawyers?
Quote from: OldGit on November 02, 2011, 01:24:14 PM
Who is less likely to be bent, 12 morons or 2 lawyers?
Well, the twelve morons can REALLY suck at getting to the right verdict. 8)