Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe trust between adults and children is far more important than the trust between a child sex abuser and an adult who is going help to cover up the sex abuser's crimes.
1. no one has stated that child abuse is not a betrayal of trust, you assertion of course does nothing to answer the question. The actual question was, Is it moral to betray a trust when you expect absolute confidence from someone.
18 Feb 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI would imagine yes, more likely ~ if the person having sex with children knew that the organisation would then cover it up and protect him from having to pay for his crimes.
The actual question was 'Is a child abuser more or less likely to make a confession if they know that that trust will be instantly betrayed.'
And I would imagine yes, more likely ~ if the person having sex with children knew that there would then be no law enforcement breathing down his neck if he continued to abuse children.
And I would imagine yes, more likely ~ if the person having sex with children knew that the "trust" that that he'd mobilized in the organisation would also apply to all instances of him having sex with children in the future, confession or no confession.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
18 Feb 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobie1 - in the case of child abuse, yes it is definitely moral to betray a confidence.
So some pertinent question for the forum.
1.Is it moral to betray a confidence
2. Is a child abuser more or less likely to confess if they know they will be immediately betrayed.
Food for thought.
2 - the priority would be a proper investigation by the police, not to get a 'confession'.
18 Feb 15
Can anyone tell me why its not possible to make the penitent privilege absolute and yet at the same time meet all secular and moral laws? For example, if someone comes to you and makes confession of child abuse either as the perpetrator or the victim, why its not possible to make sure that person tells someone in a professional capacity that deals with this kind of thing? It seems to me that this would preserve both the sanctity of penitent privilege and would avail the victim or the perpetrator of professional help.
Ministers of religion are not trained to deal with criminality, they are trained to deal with spirituality and situations like this puts them under an unfair moral dilemma, that being to protect the anonymity of either the victim or the perpetrator and to adhere to secular laws which may compromise one or either of these stances.
18 Feb 15
Originally posted by stellspalfiethis is fine, although you have provided no real substance.
1 - in the case of child abuse, yes it is definitely moral to betray a confidence.
2 - the priority would be a proper investigation by the police, not to get a 'confession'.
In the case of child abuse is it your reasoning that the harm that is done by refusing to report child abuse outweighs the morality of betraying a confidence. What about the case of a victim, if someone came to you and asked for confidentiality because she or he was facing abuse and asked you not to reveal it to anyone, would that also constitute a more weighty moral imperative to report it?
the second question was actually is it more or less likely to result in someone making a confession or hiding it knowing that if they do confess they will be instantly betrayed. Your statement does not answer this, even remotely.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
18 Feb 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobie"why its not possible to make sure that person tells someone in a professional capacity that deals with this kind of thing?"
Can anyone tell me why its not possible to make the penitent privilege absolute and yet at the same time meet all secular and moral laws? For example, if someone comes to you and makes confession of child abuse either as the perpetrator or the victim, why its not possible to make sure that person tells someone in a professional capacity that deals wi ...[text shortened]... e perpetrator and to adhere to secular laws which may compromise one or either of these stances.
who would you suggest? and how would you make sure the perpetrator spoke to them?
18 Feb 15
Originally posted by stellspalfieyeah that kind of sucks, it would be difficult to physically coerce someone to speak to a professional.
[b]"why its not possible to make sure that person tells someone in a professional capacity that deals with this kind of thing?"
who would you suggest? and how would you make sure the perpetrator spoke to them?[/b]
18 Feb 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieTake your organisation for example: how many people ~ who confessed to it ~ did the organisation then persuade to turn themselves in so that they could be prosecuted for their sex crimes? Putting a figure on the success of such persuasion would surely cast a favourable light on your organisation as it endeavours to find the most effective way to approach this issue.
For example, if someone comes to you and makes confession of child abuse either as the perpetrator or the victim, why its not possible to make sure that person tells someone in a professional capacity that deals with this kind of thing?
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
18 Feb 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieif the person was a child then i would inform the police.
this is fine, although you have provided no real substance.
In the case of child abuse is it your reasoning that the harm that is done by refusing to report child abuse outweighs the morality of betraying a confidence. What about the case of a victim, if someone came to you and asked for confidentiality because she or he was facing abuse and aske ...[text shortened]... do confess they will be instantly betrayed. Your statement does not answer this, even remotely.
the second question was actually is it more or less likely to result in someone making a confession or hiding it knowing that if they do confess they will be instantly betrayed. Your statement does not answer this, even remotely.
my answer is that a confession (religious not legal) is not a priority regardless if more people are likely to confess. the priority is a proper investigation by the police.
would you support a school who thought that more teachers would admit to sexual abuse if they made it confidential? the priority of any organization that has responsibility to children is to contact the police if abuse is suspected.
Originally posted by FMFI don't know. What I can reason is that it seems to me that its much more likely that someone will confess if they know that their confession is heard in absolute confidentiality. Otherwise they are simply likely to hide it until they are found out. This appears to me to substantiate the case for penitent privilege, for at very least, they can seek some kind of help and if the minster is any worth at all, they will try their utmost to make sure that they seek professional help in some capacity. The alternative to this is for the abuser or the abused to simply hide and the case never comes to light for fear of immediate betrayal with irreparable damage.
Take your organisation for example: how many people ~ who confessed to it ~ did the organisation then persuade to turn themselves in so that they could be prosecuted for their sex crimes? Putting a figure on the success of such persuasion would surely cast a favourable light on your organisation as it endeavours to find the most effective way to approach this issue.
18 Feb 15
1 edit
Originally posted by stellspalfiebut you have not answered whether you think someone is more or less likely to make a confession knowing that they will be instantly betrayed. You have dodged the question again.
if the person was a child then i would inform the police.
[b]the second question was actually is it more or less likely to result in someone making a confession or hiding it knowing that if they do confess they will be instantly betrayed. Your statement does not answer this, even remotely.
my answer is that a confession (religious not lega ...[text shortened]... organization that has responsibility to children is to contact the police if abuse is suspected.[/b]
School teachers are not trained to hear confession, its only ministers of God that are trained!
18 Feb 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI've argued that this may even 'empower' sex abusers, in a sense. I'd be interested in your take on this.
What I can reason is that it seems to me that its much more likely that someone will confess if they know that their confession is heard in absolute confidentiality.
Originally posted by FMFI just gave you my take on it. i think they are simply more likely to hide knowing that they will be betrayed. After all why would they be motivated to own up if they new that they would face instant betrayal?
I've argued that this may even 'empower' sex abusers, in a sense. I'd be interested in your take on this.
18 Feb 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAnother alternative is to create a corporate culture where sexually abused children can come forward ~ speak truth to power ~ and seek help and justice without feeling they are confronted by a set of trust relationships between the adults designed to either cover up sex crimes or at least let the sex abusers get away with it (assuming they are not prosecuted for their crimes).
The alternative to this is for the abuser or the abused to simply hide and the case never comes to light for fear of immediate betrayal with irreparable damage.