I was talking to someone once about something that you could probably clear up or add too.

Psychiatrists have to deal with criminals all the time, if a person confesses to a crime and it is not on their criminal record then is the psychiatrist still bound to their confidentiality agreement? Can they turn them in?

I think if it's something small like vandalism or petty theft then confidentiality would probably rule. But if it's something major like rape or murder then the psychiatrist should be obligated to tell the authorities.

I just thought you might know seeing as you are from a sociological/psychiatric background*.

(*Are you? or did I dream that bit up lol)

I'm not sure about the US law but I'm fairly sure confidentiality has its limits with certain crimes in New Zealand.

Telling a priest you shoplift - he can't turn you in. Telling a priest you murder children - he has to turn you in. I think they may have to follow the duty to warn and the duty to protect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_warn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_protect

I think that is how it works anyway.

Yeah i have a degree in psychology.  Almost have one in sociology.  In general it's the same though it depends by state.

In general it's best to go with the APA standards when it comes to these things.

http://www.apa.org/ethics/code2002.html#4

This reminds me of a early scene in a movie called 'in Bruges" where Colin Farrel walks in and confesses the crime of killing the priest that he is confessing too...

"Who did you kill, son?"

"You, father"

Good movie.

No, that is on the church. Personally, if I were the priest, I would report a serious crime. If its like "i shoplifted a candy bar" or something knuckleheaded, then I'd tell the kid to go tell the truth to the store clerk and accept whatever consequences that come with it.

If he doesn't, well then that feeling of guilt will hang over the kids head and its on him to do what he wants.

If its serious like if a guy raped someone or killed someone, I would be like "you should go report yourself in and accept the consequences that come with it. if you don't, then I will"


I believe that you can forgive someone for their wrong doing, but that does not mean they escape from their own consequences.

Now I also believe in privilidged information; if the police come and investigate me and ask me "what exactly did he say," then legally I can reserve the right claim priest-church member priviledge, but it really depends on what the wrong doing is if I want to invoke that priviledge.

That's how I see things.

In Catholicism (and many of the other Christian faiths that practice confession), confidentiality is supposed to be absolute, to the point where it's said that a confessor should go to jail rather than divulge any information. A priest can urge the person to go to the police, or even refuse to offer absolution unless the person turns himself in, but theologically speaking this is the most that a priest is allowed to do.

In other faiths this can be different, though even in faiths which do allow reporting it is usually only to be done in the gravest circumstances.

There is theological stuff, and there is legal stuff.

For example, what if someone confesses to me that they have been molesting kids for 10 years and continues to molest kids and has no plan on stopping.

I believe it is my responsibility to report it, theologically or not theologically.

I'm not a catholic, though, so don't know anything really about how the church works.

You can report them. But don't expect them to get in trouble. Anything said in confidence to someone as a spiritual guide (Not just priests in Christian religion) is all void in the courts. If thats the only evidence that they'd have expect it to be dropped.

that's fine. I understand that in the court of law confessions are priviledge. But I'd like to think that the police would be able to get evidence from kids, witnesses, etc. etc.