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

[starry_solo]

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

right but the example given in the OP was the penitent person told the priest that her husband killed his ex and then she disappeared

 

[Imzadi]

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

You do know that a lot of these legal dramas base their legalities on REAL actual laws, right? Even if the "drama" is fictitious? They don't make up or change actual laws. Back in the mid-1980's when L.A. Law, came out some famous law schools used the dilemmas presented in episodes in their curriculum's case studies. Probably other law schools still do that with the newer legal shows.

Law & Order, actually scoured the actual news to use as inspiration for stories. Some stories are so famous, Michael Jackson sleeping with young boys, Anna Nicole Smith, etc., it's easy to figure out which headline they grabbed their idea from. Then they wrote their dramatic stories applying real, actual laws in NYS.

What's funny & ironic is that you even USED the dilemma for the priest that the Bull episode highlighted:

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?).

 

[QueenIsabella]

I know it's not the question, but if someone (anyone!) came to you, and said that her husband killed his first wife--wouldn't you tell that person to RUN!?! Run fast, run far, get yourself away from him?

As to the priest and the confessional--Laci wasn't confessing a crime that she was involved with. She was saying her husband told her that he did it. That wouldn't be enough proof to break the confessional seal over--how do we know he wasn't BS-ing? Or she wasn't a vindictive, soon-to-be-ex wife who was laying groundwork for a good divorce case? Had I been that priest, after telling her to run like the wind, I would try to convince her to talk to the police. They could at least open a case file and see if the details provided matched up with the first wife's death. Then they could see if more investigating was in order.

Imagine the trouble it would cause, if priests had to report every time someone said someone else committed a crime--that's only hearsay evidence, not admissible in court, and it could cause more problems than it fixed.

 

[Imzadi]

It absolutely matters what the law is. The law trumps whatever beliefs the catholic church (or any other) has.

Not to the Catholic priest. Laws are different in different cities and different countries. Roman Catholicism is worldwide. The Catholic priests are supposed to follow the laws/rule according to the Vatican.

 

[Imzadi]

One of the articles I read trying to figure it out pretty much said that what you describe wouldn’t stand if push came to shove.

Do you mean, that when it came down to it. that the priest would cave? Or that the courts would give in to church "laws"? I've often wondered why we don't see more real news stories of priests martyring themselves & going to prison as they won't reveal what happened in confession?

 

[wenrob]

Do you mean, that when it came down to it. that the priest would cave? Or that the courts would give in to church "laws"? I've often wondered why we don't see more real news stories of priests martyring themselves & going to prison as they won't reveal what happened in confession?

That what happened in the episode you described was not a confession so he wouldn’t be bound by it.

 

[cabanafrau]

You do know that a lot of these legal dramas base their legalities on REAL actual laws, right? Even if the "drama" is fictitious? They don't make up or change actual laws. Back in the mid-1980's when L.A. Law, came out some famous law schools used the dilemmas presented in episodes in their curriculum's case studies. Probably other law schools still do that with the newer legal shows.

Law & Order, actually scoured the actual news to use as inspiration for stories. Some stories are so famous, Michael Jackson sleeping with young boys, Anna Nicole Smith, etc., it's easy to figure out which headline they grabbed their idea from. Then they wrote their dramatic stories applying real, actual laws in NYS.

What's funny & ironic is that you even USED the dilemma for the priest that the Bull episode highlighted:

They may base their legalities on REAL actual laws. That doesn't necessarily mean they are scrupulously tidy about all the fine points of the law that may intersect with the dramatic twists and turns of any given plotline of a legal drama. More than once I've heard judges and lawyers yukking it up about the "legal consultant having been on vacation when they were working on such and such episode".

 

[sam_gordon]

You do know that a lot of these legal dramas base their legalities on REAL actual laws, right? Even if the "drama" is fictitious? They don't make up or change actual laws. Back in the mid-1980's when L.A. Law, came out some famous law schools used the dilemmas presented in episodes in their curriculum's case studies. Probably other law schools still do that with the newer legal shows.

Law & Order, actually scoured the actual news to use as inspiration for stories. Some stories are so famous, Michael Jackson sleeping with young boys, Anna Nicole Smith, etc., it's easy to figure out which headline they grabbed their idea from. Then they wrote their dramatic stories applying real, actual laws in NYS.

What's funny & ironic is that you even USED the dilemma for the priest that the Bull episode highlighted:

I'm sure the legal dramas BASE their story lines on real cases. That doesn't mean they follow laws to the letter. And if you don't see the difference between using a fictional show as "fact" and someone posting what they "think", I'm not sure how to help you.

 

[dominiondad]

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

That would take a pretty drastic change to our Constitution (assuming you are in the US). Many of our laws are based on things like unreasonable searches and seizures which ultimately come down to an expectation of privacy. If we decide that people who have broken the law (murder, rape, tax evasion, shoplifting, speeding, transporting unsafe refrigerators across state lines, possesion of marijuana) have no expectation of privacy, then we don't need search warrants or court orders to listen in on phone calls. If somebody buys marijuana in a state where it is "legal", it is still a crime under federal law. There is now wrongdoing and therefore no expectation of privacy under your proposal. That would mean the DEA could show up at your house and search your belongings and tap your phones.

 

[dominiondad]

You do know that a lot of these legal dramas base their legalities on REAL actual laws, right? Even if the "drama" is fictitious? They don't make up or change actual laws. Back in the mid-1980's when L.A. Law, came out some famous law schools used the dilemmas presented in episodes in their curriculum's case studies. Probably other law schools still do that with the newer legal shows.

Law & Order, actually scoured the actual news to use as inspiration for stories. Some stories are so famous, Michael Jackson sleeping with young boys, Anna Nicole Smith, etc., it's easy to figure out which headline they grabbed their idea from. Then they wrote their dramatic stories applying real, actual laws in NYS.

What's funny & ironic is that you even USED the dilemma for the priest that the Bull episode highlighted:

Yep. They are based on real life events. And then Hollywood moves some facts around to make it interesting. The idea that the prosecutor would be present during the execution of a search warrant is laughable, and I see it on almost every episode of Law & Order I've watched. Also, the speed at which the cases go to trial is very unrealistic, as is much of how the courtroom operates. While the show may introduce various legal theories, some of which are accurate, it shouldn't be used as a lesson in criminal justice.

 

[Searc]

I know it's not the question, but if someone (anyone!) came to you, and said that her husband killed his first wife--wouldn't you tell that person to RUN!?! Run fast, run far, get yourself away from him?

As to the priest and the confessional--Laci wasn't confessing a crime that she was involved with. She was saying her husband told her that he did it. That wouldn't be enough proof to break the confessional seal over--how do we know he wasn't BS-ing? Or she wasn't a vindictive, soon-to-be-ex wife who was laying groundwork for a good divorce case? Had I been that priest, after telling her to run like the wind, I would try to convince her to talk to the police. They could at least open a case file and see if the details provided matched up with the first wife's death. Then they could see if more investigating was in order.

Imagine the trouble it would cause, if priests had to report every time someone said someone else committed a crime--that's only hearsay evidence, not admissible in court, and it could cause more problems than it fixed.

It wasn't Laci Peterson, it was Stacey Peterson. One crime happened in Cali, the other referenced in the OP was in the Chicago area... Drew Peterson, not Scott.

 

[DISNEYSQUIRRELS]

Separation of church & state

 

[QueenIsabella]

It wasn't Laci Peterson, it was Stacey Peterson. One crime happened in Cali, the other referenced in the OP was in the Chicago area... Drew Peterson, not Scott.

Sorry, my brain fart. Clearly, I shouldn't be typing while cooking. The rest of my post stands.

 

[Imzadi]

They may base their legalities on REAL actual laws. That doesn't necessarily mean they are scrupulously tidy about all the fine points of the law that may intersect with the dramatic twists and turns of any given plotline of a legal drama.

Yep. They are based on real life events. And then Hollywood moves some facts around to make it interesting. The idea that the prosecutor would be present during the execution of a search warrant is laughable, and I see it on almost every episode of Law & Order I've watched. Also, the speed at which the cases go to trial is very unrealistic, as is much of how the courtroom operates.

Yes, but those dramatic details aren't the actual laws themselves. And yes, I'm sure in a 22 episode season, some facts are skewed. However, I'm sure there are many laws they get accurately, too, and they help inform people and change public understanding. Law & Order: SVU, which is about NYS laws, had a gazillion inaccurately detailed dramatic stories from when it first aired in 1999 to 2006 about the then actual law in NYS: the 5 year statute of limitations on first degree rape. One of the shortest statutes in the country. Due, in part, to the many dramatizations, (the law they got correct,) on how they couldn't prosecute because it was reported too late, or they didn't find the suspect in time, or how new DNA only recently linked a suspect to the crime, but it was past the statute of limitations, and of course the long-term effects rape has on the victim beyond the 5 year limitation, in 2006, the actual law, the statute of limitations on first degree rape in NYS was lifted. NOW, there is move to change the statute on 2nd & 3rd degree rape. This Feb, the NY Child Victims Act, was passed which raised the statute of limitations for cases of child sexual abuse. These new actual laws are now being dramatized instead of the old ones. NYC put out a report last week indicating that while most crimes are down in NYC, the reporting or rapes has gone up. They hypothesize it is due to the Me Too movement, the change in these laws, and the greater acceptance of reporting rapes and being a rape victim, which these shows have helped to do. Of course, real victims should be consulting real lawyers, which they are now doing instead of hiding in isolation.

While the show may introduce various legal theories, some of which are accurate, it shouldn't be used as a lesson in criminal justice.

Actually, I had read years ago, when L.A. Law, was really popular, that some law schools used those cases in classes. I do not know if they were also presenting them to ask the law students which parts are accurate and which are not.

More than once I've heard judges and lawyers yukking it up

Big of you to start admitting again that you are not an actual lawyer.

 

[cabanafrau]

Big of you to start admitting again that you are not an actual lawyer.

Using the phrase "admitting again" implies I have ever said I was a lawyer. I have no idea what an "actual lawyer" might be. Perhaps you might be big enough to demonstrate when I ever claimed to be a lawyer?

I think if I'm understanding the gist of your argument, it's okay to share legal knowledge if it comes from reliable sources like TV shows, but discussing anything learned working in a legal setting like a courthouse is objectionable?

If you can make the accusation I've represented myself as a lawyer, surely you can back it up with proof for everyone to see.

 

[DisneyOma]

That would take a pretty drastic change to our Constitution (assuming you are in the US). Many of our laws are based on things like unreasonable searches and seizures which ultimately come down to an expectation of privacy. If we decide that people who have broken the law (murder, rape, tax evasion, shoplifting, speeding, transporting unsafe refrigerators across state lines, possesion of marijuana) have no expectation of privacy, then we don't need search warrants or court orders to listen in on phone calls. If somebody buys marijuana in a state where it is "legal", it is still a crime under federal law. There is now wrongdoing and therefore no expectation of privacy under your proposal. That would mean the DEA could show up at your house and search your belongings and tap your phones.

No, that's not what I am talking about - I'm talking about the archaic treatment of women in laws in this country. The previously stated info that a husband can tell his wife all kinds of horrible, illegal things he's done, but what she tells the police has no standing in court? He can force her not to testify by stating she's his spouse? (Of course it could be used the other way around, but let's not kid ourselves why the law was written)

 

[dominiondad]

No, that's not what I am talking about - I'm talking about the archaic treatment of women in laws in this country. The previously stated info that a husband can tell his wife all kinds of horrible, illegal things he's done, but what she tells the police has no standing in court? He can force her not to testify by stating she's his spouse? (Of course it could be used the other way around, but let's not kid ourselves why the law was written)

I was simply responding to your comment "There should be no expectation of privacy for wrongdoing. " That's one of the challenges with law. When you start carving out exceptions, there tend to be a lot of unintended consequences. I'm a liitle bit confused by what scenario you're saying is a problem. I'm not sure how spousal priveledge could be considered sexist, recognizing that the priveledge doesn't exist for cases involving domestic violence. If a husband tells his wife he killed another man five years ago, I'm not sure how she is the victim of a bad law. I'm honestly not trying to argue, just trying to understand. The OP asked a question related to priveledged conversations under US law. I honestly don't see how those rules could be interpreted to be sexist.

 

[mummabear]

Not to the Catholic priest. Laws are different in different cities and different countries. Roman Catholicism is worldwide. The Catholic priests are supposed to follow the laws/rule according to the Vatican.

Only in their belief, no where will their belief overrule the law of the city or country they are in, and they will suffer the consequences of refusing to comply with the law.

That would take a pretty drastic change to our Constitution (assuming you are in the US). Many of our laws are based on things like unreasonable searches and seizures which ultimately come down to an expectation of privacy. If we decide that people who have broken the law (murder, rape, tax evasion, shoplifting, speeding, transporting unsafe refrigerators across state lines, possesion of marijuana) have no expectation of privacy, then we don't need search warrants or court orders to listen in on phone calls. If somebody buys marijuana in a state where it is "legal", it is still a crime under federal law. There is now wrongdoing and therefore no expectation of privacy under your proposal. That would mean the DEA could show up at your house and search your belongings and tap your phones.

Difference between openly admitting to a crime and expecting it to be kept private, in my opinion if you want that private then you should keep your mouth shut.

 

[sam_gordon]

Yes, but those dramatic details aren't the actual laws themselves. And yes, I'm sure in a 22 episode season, some facts are skewed. However, I'm sure there are many laws they get accurately, too, and they help inform people and change public understanding. Law & Order: SVU, which is about NYS laws, had a gazillion inaccurately detailed dramatic stories from when it first aired in 1999 to 2006 about the then actual law in NYS: the 5 year statute of limitations on first degree rape. One of the shortest statutes in the country. Due, in part, to the many dramatizations, (the law they got correct,) on how they couldn't prosecute because it was reported too late, or they didn't find the suspect in time, or how new DNA only recently linked a suspect to the crime, but it was past the statute of limitations, and of course the long-term effects rape has on the victim beyond the 5 year limitation, in 2006, the actual law, the statute of limitations on first degree rape in NYS was lifted. NOW, there is move to change the statute on 2nd & 3rd degree rape. This Feb, the NY Child Victims Act, was passed which raised the statute of limitations for cases of child sexual abuse. These new actual laws are now being dramatized instead of the old ones. NYC put out a report last week indicating that while most crimes are down in NYC, the reporting or rapes has gone up. They hypothesize it is due to the Me Too movement, the change in these laws, and the greater acceptance of reporting rapes and being a rape victim, which these shows have helped to do. Of course, real victims should be consulting real lawyers, which they are now doing instead of hiding in isolation.

So I'm curious... lets say you're the victim of a crime in NY. You think it would be a good idea to use L&O as your baseline on what should happen? There's been plenty of lawyer (as well as doctor) shows on TV. Do they get the big things right? Most of the time. But I'm not going to base my knowledge of anything on a fictional TV show. That's all I'm saying.

 

[L&Lfan]

I’m old school. I use Perry Mason.