分享神圣的秘密:危险人物对牧师忏悔特权的例外是(过去的)时候了吗?

R. M. Cassidy
{"title":"分享神圣的秘密:危险人物对牧师忏悔特权的例外是(过去的)时候了吗?","authors":"R. M. Cassidy","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.401220","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this article, the author discusses the important and previously unexplored topic of whether the law should recognize a future harms exception to the clergy-penitent privilege, similar to that recognized in the area of psychotherapist-patient and attorney-client privileges. After tracing the origins and current application of the clergy-penitent privilege in America, the author discusses how the privilege as currently applied in most states admits of no exceptions, and is unnecessarily expansive in breadth. Using the hypothetical of a homicidal spouse who reveals to his minister an intent to murder his wife, the article compares the ethical and legal duties of a minister with those of an attorney and a psychotherapist. The author concludes that the state's compelling interest in protecting public safety in such a situation outweighs the parties' interests in confidentially, and urges adoption of a limited exception to the privilege for communications pertaining to future violent crimes. In the last section of the article, the author argues that such a dangerous person exception to the clergy-penitent privilege would not contravene either the Establishment Clause or the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.","PeriodicalId":75324,"journal":{"name":"William and Mary law review","volume":"44 1","pages":"1627"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sharing Sacred Secrets: Is it (Past) Time for a Dangerous Person Exception to the Clergy-Penitent Privilege?\",\"authors\":\"R. M. Cassidy\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.401220\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this article, the author discusses the important and previously unexplored topic of whether the law should recognize a future harms exception to the clergy-penitent privilege, similar to that recognized in the area of psychotherapist-patient and attorney-client privileges. After tracing the origins and current application of the clergy-penitent privilege in America, the author discusses how the privilege as currently applied in most states admits of no exceptions, and is unnecessarily expansive in breadth. Using the hypothetical of a homicidal spouse who reveals to his minister an intent to murder his wife, the article compares the ethical and legal duties of a minister with those of an attorney and a psychotherapist. The author concludes that the state's compelling interest in protecting public safety in such a situation outweighs the parties' interests in confidentially, and urges adoption of a limited exception to the privilege for communications pertaining to future violent crimes. In the last section of the article, the author argues that such a dangerous person exception to the clergy-penitent privilege would not contravene either the Establishment Clause or the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.\",\"PeriodicalId\":75324,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"William and Mary law review\",\"volume\":\"44 1\",\"pages\":\"1627\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2003-05-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"William and Mary law review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.401220\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"William and Mary law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.401220","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

在这篇文章中,作者讨论了一个重要的和以前未被探索的话题,即法律是否应该承认牧师-忏悔者特权的未来伤害例外,类似于在心理治疗师-病人和律师-委托人特权领域所承认的例外。在追溯美国神职人员-忏悔者特权的起源和目前的适用之后,作者讨论了目前在大多数州适用的特权是如何不允许例外的,并且在范围上不必要地扩大。本文以一个有杀人倾向的配偶向他的牧师透露了谋杀妻子的意图为假设,比较了牧师与律师和心理治疗师的道德和法律责任。提交人的结论是,在这种情况下,国家在保护公共安全方面的迫切利益超过了当事人在保密方面的利益,并敦促对有关未来暴力犯罪的通信特权采取有限的例外。在文章的最后一节,作者认为这种对神职人员忏悔特权的危险人物例外既不违反第一修正案的政教分离条款,也不违反第一修正案的自由行使条款。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Sharing Sacred Secrets: Is it (Past) Time for a Dangerous Person Exception to the Clergy-Penitent Privilege?
In this article, the author discusses the important and previously unexplored topic of whether the law should recognize a future harms exception to the clergy-penitent privilege, similar to that recognized in the area of psychotherapist-patient and attorney-client privileges. After tracing the origins and current application of the clergy-penitent privilege in America, the author discusses how the privilege as currently applied in most states admits of no exceptions, and is unnecessarily expansive in breadth. Using the hypothetical of a homicidal spouse who reveals to his minister an intent to murder his wife, the article compares the ethical and legal duties of a minister with those of an attorney and a psychotherapist. The author concludes that the state's compelling interest in protecting public safety in such a situation outweighs the parties' interests in confidentially, and urges adoption of a limited exception to the privilege for communications pertaining to future violent crimes. In the last section of the article, the author argues that such a dangerous person exception to the clergy-penitent privilege would not contravene either the Establishment Clause or the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
GENETIC DUTIES. Functional Corporate Knowledge THE GENETIC INFORMATION NONDISCRIMINATION ACT AT AGE 10: GINA'S CONTROVERSIAL ASSERTION THAT DATA TRANSPARENCY PROTECTS PRIVACY AND CIVIL RIGHTS. Prosecuting Poverty, Criminalizing Care Pereira's Aftershocks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1