Ok, let’s just get one issue out of the way right up front - this thread is NOT intended to debate the merits of A.A. (or similar programs) as a whole, or whether they work or not. If you have some grudge or hatred for this type of recovery, then please move along. I’m interested in the opinions of folks who are involved in recovery.
Anyway, suppose you go to your usual meeting and during the course of sharing, someone mentions that they accidentally killed somebody while drunk (or high or acting out, etc.) but managed to successfully cover up their guilt, and then made no mention about confessing to the police. What’s your reaction?
Or how about someone confessing that they are a pedophile, but stating that they have no intention of stopping what they’re doing, and maybe even reminding everyone that “what you’ve heard here - let remain here!”
Or maybe, a person talks in detail about how that person wants to KILL somebody, but goes beyond just venting rage to telling particular details about how & when they would commit the crime?
Or an accountant confessing that someone they embezzled money from an insurance claim, but insists that the person they “with-held the money from” didn’t deserve it (but then, the accountant doesn’t explain what she DID with the money…)
Is there any line that you draw where you would say anonymity doesn’t apply? At what point would you tell the police what a certain person had done (or may be planning to do?)
Although it hasn’t gained the same legal protection, I think groups like A.A. should have the same protection as a conversation with your shrink. If someone has talked about what they DID do, then it is off-limits. However, in your example, the pedophile who promises to continue and the person who states that they WILL kill someone should not be protected at AA and are not protected by patient/doctor or priest/penitent privileges.
Disclaimer: I am not currently involved in any 12-step recovery program. I was though, for several years, a long time ago.
Current thinking may have changed, but at the time it was impressed on us that anonymity was almost a sacred trust. The guarantee of anonymity was credited with much of the program’s success. A person’s recovery often hinges on the ability to confess wrongdoing without fear of judgement or repercussions. It should be pointed out though, that a further element of the program is for a person to make amends for their wrongdoing.
When I am (was) in a 12-step meeting I am there for one purpose and one only: To achieve and maintain sobriety and to help others to do the same. It is not my job at that point to pass judgement, or to be a moral arbiter, a police informer, a public do-gooder or anything else.
Having said that however, I suppose there could be extreme cases where it would be appropriate to break anonymity in order to prevent a greater evil. I don’t think it would be a good idea for an individual to make this determination, but rather for it to be decided on and carried out by a group decision…probably preceeded by an effort to convince the wrongdoer to turn him/her self in first. This, I think, would be in line with the spirit of the 12-step/group recovery plan.
I would be afraid that the defense lawyers would drive me to drink.
I have never had a need to be in AA but I have been a witness in court on a serious case. It can be hell.