What are the rules with "Confession" & police reporting?

[dominiondad]

There are effectively three people you can confess a crime to and they can't report it:
1. Clergy
2. Lawyer
3. Spouse

Now, obviously any of those people can report it, it's not as though they are physically unable to make a phone call, but the information can't be used against the offender. Keep in mind, this is based on statute and case law, so there are exceptions that can vary from case to case.

 

[china mom]

There are exception to everything. For example, in Maryland a spouse cannot be compelled to testify against their spouse EXCEPT in the case of domestic violence. In that case, they are allowed to invoke Spousal Privilege one time. If there is a second case brought against the spouse for the same type of crime, the spouse can be compelled to testify or face contempt charges.

Therapists and doctors cannot be compelled to testify against their patients or reveal any information to law enforcement EXCEPT if there is an indication of an ongoing or future crime where another person may be in danger or the person is a danger to themselves.

When I worked i the courthouse, we had a Peace Order proceeding which was a weird little dance between the doctor protecting patient information but revealing enough to get the protection order against the patient. He could not provide any diagnostic information about her mental condition but could testify to actions and what the patient said inn regards to his safety.

 

[DisneyOma]

There are effectively three people you can confess a crime to and they can't report it:
1. Clergy
2. Lawyer
3. Spouse

Now, obviously any of those people can report it, it's not as though they are physically unable to make a phone call, but the information can't be used against the offender. Keep in mind, this is based on statute and case law, so there are exceptions that can vary from case to case.

Are you saying that if my husband killed someone and then told me about it, and I went to the police and told them what he said he did, they couldn't use that against my husband? That makes no sense to me whatsoever.

 

[Hikergirl]

Disclaimer: I'm not Christian or any religion affiliated, so I apologize if I use incorrect language or understanding..

Watching a documentary about Drew Peterson & Stacy Peterson & they interviewed a "religious figure" (sorry, I did not catch if he was a pastor, priest, minister, etc) who stated that Stacy confided in him that Drew killed his first wife. She used great detail to describe the murder. I wonder why he did not report this to the police. Stacy went missing a week later.

I'm not sure if she was talking to him during the context of "confession" or if she was just talking with him. Are religious figures vowed to secrecy with things like this? Could the religious figure be held accountable for not going to the police?

In this case there really isn't a confession as the woman he was speaking too was not the murderer. I don't think what she told him falls under any mandatory reporting situation as it is third party hearsay.
I would assume that there might be some encouragement from the priest to have her get in contact with law authorities.
If it was her confessing I think it is a different matter. I was always under the impression that a priest was legally obligated to tell law enforcement if asked by them, but they weren't under any legal authority to report it themselves. This isn't based on any real knowledge, just what was believed (by me) growing up Catholic.
I think morally in either situation a priest should contact law enforcement, but I would think that about anyone not just a religious figurehead.

 

[design_mom]

Are you saying that if my husband killed someone and then told me about it, and I went to the police and told them what he said he did, they couldn't use that against my husband? That makes no sense to me whatsoever.

I don't think that's what he's saying. I think what he was saying is that a wife can't be forced to testify against her husband. You could voluntarily tell the police and/or testify in court -- and if you chose to do so, then the police could/would definitely use it against him -- but they couldn't force you to come to the stand and testify against him.

 

[china mom]

Are you saying that if my husband killed someone and then told me about it, and I went to the police and told them what he said he did, they couldn't use that against my husband? That makes no sense to me whatsoever.

If your husband killed someone and you told the police, they can use that information to build their case but you would not be allowed to testify in court to anything he told you unless you both waived spousal privilege.

Now if you divorce before trial, I believe that nullifies spousal privilege.

 

[cabanafrau]

If your husband killed someone and you told the police, they can use that information to build their case but you would not be allowed to testify in court to anything he told you unless you both waived spousal privilege.

Now if you divorce before trial, I believe that nullifies spousal privilege.

The spouse being subpoenaed is the one who has the sole right to invoke or waive the privilege, the accused has no legal authority to invoke the privilege on behalf of the spouse.

 

[DisneyOma]

I don't think that's what he's saying. I think what he was saying is that a wife can't be forced to testify against her husband. You could voluntarily tell the police and/or testify in court -- and if you chose to do so, then the police could/would definitely use it against him -- but they couldn't force you to come to the stand and testify against him.

This makes sense, what china mom states below does not :

If your husband killed someone and you told the police, they can use that information to build their case but you would not be allowed to testify in court to anything he told you unless you both waived spousal privilege.

Now if you divorce before trial, I believe that nullifies spousal privilege.

I don't think this is correct? If my husband threatened to kill me, etc, and I told police, and my husband didn't waive spousal privilege then they couldn't use what I told them to protect me? That makes no sense at all. Spouses can file against their abusive mates - spousal privilege does not cover things the way you state.

 

[dominiondad]

I think the general principle at play here is "expe

If your husband killed someone and you told the police, they can use that information to build their case but you would not be allowed to testify in court to anything he told you unless you both waived spousal privilege.

Now if you divorce before trial, I believe that nullifies spousal privilege.

Agree with the first part. I'm unclear what happens if the statement is made while the marriage is intact and then later they divorce. I thought the priveledge survives the divorce.

 

[dominiondad]

This makes sense, what china mom states below does not :



I don't think this is correct? If my husband threatened to kill me, etc, and I told police, and my husband didn't waive spousal privilege then they couldn't use what I told them to protect me? That makes no sense at all. Spouses can file against their abusive mates - spousal privilege does not cover things the way you state.

China Mom is correct. However, it doesn't apply to domestic abuse cases. As I stated earlier, there are certainly exceptions to the rule. In general, I beleive the priniple at play here is "expectation of privacy". Spouses have an expectation that they can share their most intimate secrets with the spouse.

Remember, we are talking about law and admissable evidence. The rules around this are constantly changing and being challenged. It isn't something that's going to be summarized well on a Disney chat board.

 

[ronandannette]

I wouldn't use a fictional TV show as the definitive answer to what the law allows.

I would think it comes down to the belief of the priest. If he thinks "God's law" trumps "human law", then he can decide not to testify. Then he would have to suffer the consequences of his action (contempt of court?).

Here's some other reading...
https://www.catholiceducation.org/e...holic-faith/the-seal-of-the-confessional.htmlhttps://www.wsj.com/articles/new-laws-require-priests-to-break-the-seal-of-confession-1533303462https://vistacriminallaw.com/not-all-religious-confessions-are-protected-under-the-law/

Broadly applied, this is the same for everybody. There might be myriad reasons a person (religious or not) would choose not to get involved. It doesn't insulate anybody from their legal responsibilities.

This is an interesting topic though. I'm going to research a little on what our local laws say about a person's duty to report any knowledge of a crime. I know in some types of crimes, it's hard to get actual witnesses (even the victim themselves) to cooperate with police, let alone people in the general community who have knowledge.

 

[DietCoke18]

If you have Spectrum Cable, you can watch On Demand an episode of the TV show, Bull, on CBS. It's Season 3, Episode 10, titled, "A Higher Law." It's where someone accidentally runs over a woman & kills her. The driver confessed to a Catholic priest right afterward. The priest drove the van back, alone, to look for the woman, in case she was still alive. He got there just before the police got there and they saw him over the body. They arrested him.

At the trial, he kept saying someone else did it. But, as the driver confessed to him, he cannot break the seal of confession to say who that person is. But, it turns out, there was some loophole about how the confession happened. When the driver had shown up in his parking lot, distraught and a big dent in the van, the priest asked the driver what happened. That was when the driver confessed.
Unfortunately, in court, since the priest asked what happened, instead of the driver voluntarily coming to him to tell him, they said the "confession" doesn't count in a court of law.

The judge told the priest that by law, he was obligated to tell the court what happened. If he doesn't he will find the priest in contempt and lock him back up. (He was out on bail.)

The priest said he answers to a higher authority and won't say. The judge held him in contempt and sent him back to prison. The priest was willing to be sentenced to prison for 25 yrs to life for a crime he didn't commit, instead of breaking the seal of confession.

Of course, it's up to Bull to figure out how to get the priest declared innocent. . .


I think Law & Order had a similar type episode. Doesn't matter what the law is or what the courts demand. The Catholic Church has it's own rules about the seal of confession which priests must follow.

The law and order episode was the first thing I thought of. That “confession” was not held to be protected. I think because he said he was a priest after the fact. I have no idea what happened in the Peterson case. I feel like she should have gone to the police if she knew so much about it

 

[DisneyOma]

China Mom is correct. However, it doesn't apply to domestic abuse cases. As I stated earlier, there are certainly exceptions to the rule. In general, I beleive the priniple at play here is "expectation of privacy". Spouses have an expectation that they can share their most intimate secrets with the spouse.

Remember, we are talking about law and admissable evidence. The rules around this are constantly changing and being challenged. It isn't something that's going to be summarized well on a Disney chat board.

Well, then hopefully that archaic law will be abolished soon. There should be no expectation of privacy for wrongdoing.

 

[marymac]

Disclaimer: I'm not Christian or any religion affiliated, so I apologize if I use incorrect language or understanding..

Watching a documentary about Drew Peterson & Stacy Peterson & they interviewed a "religious figure" (sorry, I did not catch if he was a pastor, priest, minister, etc) who stated that Stacy confided in him that Drew killed his first wife. She used great detail to describe the murder. I wonder why he did not report this to the police. Stacy went missing a week later.

I'm not sure if she was talking to him during the context of "confession" or if she was just talking with him. Are religious figures vowed to secrecy with things like this? Could the religious figure be held accountable for not going to the police?

I don't think Catholic priests can reveal anything heard in a confessional but I have no idea about others.

 

[Welsh_Dragon]

In England and Wales a priest/vicar etc cannot claim privilege and can be held in contempt if he/she refuses to answer questions in Court. So be careful where you are when you confess!

 

[dadtoagirl03]

I'm not of the Catholic Faith so I don't understand how the "confession" process, however the pastor at a former church we attended had a member confess their husband was involved in some inappropriate activities, and he did contact the police. He said he had no choice as it involved minor children.

 

[starry_solo]

I think you'd have to search to find out if the priest-penitent privilege still applies when the penitent is deceased

 

[sam_gordon]

I think you'd have to search to find out if the priest-penitent privilege still applies when the penitent is deceased

If the penitent is deceased, I don't think it matters from a legal standpoint. The government can't convict a dead person.

 

[disneychrista]

I'm not of the Catholic Faith so I don't understand how the "confession" process, however the pastor at a former church we attended had a member confess their husband was involved in some inappropriate activities, and he did contact the police. He said he had no choice as it involved minor children.

I looked up mandated reporting and priests have to report if a child is being abused.

 

[mummabear]

and in many states catholic (and other) church 'laws' are recognized and upheld-under roman catholic teachings, the sins confessed by a parishioner to a priest in the sacrament of penance and reconciliation are secret to all but god, who absolves the sins through the instrument of the priest. state laws generally exempt a pastor from having to testify in court, or to law-enforcement, about what was discussed in a church confession.

In their belief only.

I would think it comes down to the belief of the priest. If he thinks "God's law" trumps "human law", then he can decide not to testify. Then he would have to suffer the consequences of his action (contempt of court?).

The priest suffering the consequences is human law trumping his beliefs.