So, if it’s not someone’s constitutional or professional duty to preserve and enforce the due process of law, if they’re a mere civilian, THEN you will impugn why do they care “that a criminal may be punished”? Not everyone goes about not caring about what does not affect them directly.
I actually saw Collins at Dragon-Con (a huge sci-fi/fantasy/cosplay convention) in Atlanta on Labor Day weekend. He was smiling and signing autographs (for whatever fee he was charging- the picture above him was from STAR TREK: TMP).
Lots of kids go there too. I wonder if he’ll be permanently disinvited from such events; of course a good possibility exists he’ll be legally barred from them if charges are filed (since I don’t think there’s a statute of limitations on child molestation).
A lot of states have eliminated statutes of limitation on such crimes but are not able to do so retroactively. So if one existed at the time of the offense it applies.
Yet not quite suffocating enough.
I know any number of police officers who do not seek therapy that would be really helpful because they think it will end their careers if their supervisors found out.
I would love a cite for that claim.
One, there is no proof she leaked it to the press, and it would make little sense for her to do so. Two, the full "diagnosis was, “narcissistic personality disorder with sociopathic tendencies”. Three, it would not be a breach of ethics if he waived confidentiality.
Keep digging.
No need. by statute, as linked to above, the crime is considered a violent act. Are you actually a lawyer? Because to be so utterly wrong on something so basic seems odd. Although your stubborn refusal to admit you are wrong seems in keeping with the profession.
She didn’t release the tape. More importantly, using them in the divorce and turning them over to police are not mutually exclusive.
She didn’t whip them out. The rest of your post is nonsensical speculation.
I never said you did.
You cannot be serious. Sorry victims, your abuser is old now and we don’t want to spend the money to lock him up. That’s cool, right?
Are you worried your tapes will get out or something?
Nope. It wasn’t meant to be a quote.
So you call her a spiteful bitch BEFORE knowing even the basic facts?
It wasn’t a breach of confidentiality. How is this not getting through to you? You have no expectation of privacy, particularly when you admit to a crime such as this one, in a group session.
I’m not sure they should. The reason for them, or course, it’s that is hard defend yourself against an allegation that is long past. Do remember where you were at a given time and date? Who you spoke with, kept receipts? It may come down between your word and someone else’s memory. We all know, or should by now, that memory is sketchy even under the best of circumstances. At trial, eyewitness testimony is the most compelling…and the most likely to be in error. And the mere allegation is enough to condemn a person in the electronic age.
Well I know that teenagers will get together and complain about how workers are being treated in Brazil or some other nonsense, but my understanding is that they’re mostly acting out of a desire to look good or attract attention, rather than because they really understand and care about the issue.
My general expectation would be that an adult will turn his efforts towards things that he actually has some meaningful interest in. I’ll admit to the possiblity of people who are genuinely disinterested; they have no affected friends or family, no personal related experiences, etc. But I’m generally going to be sceptical on that account.
I imagine the impetus for including her was that she needed to be placated. I believe she found out independently about the abuse, and confronted him. THEN they went to therapy, etc.
It’s possible he wanted to change, but I really care because the need for justice outweighs his desires to get therapy and remain free.
I love that you quoted yourself to emphasize your own point. I am gonna have to steal that debate tactic.
In totally sympathetic to people with harmful desires seeking therapy as they figure out a way to live without hurting people. If you need to work out some difficult thought patterns, have at it.
But if they have admitted to an escalating pattern of hurting people spanning years, it’s too late. They need therapy, yes, but they need therapy in a setting where they will not be left alone with children. Once you’ve abused someone, you’ve crossed a line that can’t be uncrossed. You need enforced limits to your access to kids.
Where is the sympathy for the victims here? Children do not have the brain development to process these actions, and it’s well documented that sexual abuse-- especially by an authority figure-- can cause major trauma. If anything, they deserve to have their experiences validated and see a little justice. Could you imagine knowing the person who hurt you got off scott free-- out of sympathy?
Did I miss something? The circumstantial evidence not withstanding, where is the proof that she is the one who released this information to TMZ?
no message, improper formatting
There is none. She denied it, and her story makes sense for a number of reasons:
The allegation is that she was using the tape to extort money from him, and to gain an advantage during divorce proceedings. That makes no sense because she gave the tape to authorities in 2012. How can you exert leverage over someone without exclusive access to the blackmail material, and when you have already given it to the police?
Additionally, if her goal was to bleed him dry, she would not have released the tape, effectively destroying his ability to make money. She also would not have done it BEFORE they settled their divorce.
Well hold on now. She says she gave to the cops but that they did nothing with it. And he has alleged that she released it out of spite because he was divorcing her. Logic and realistic self-interest can take a back seat when emotion is involved.
[QUOTE=even sven]
Where is the sympathy for the victims here? … Could you imagine knowing the person who hurt you got off scott free-- out of sympathy?
[/QUOTE]
I don’t have to imagine it in some hypothetical scenario because I have lived it in concrete reality. To say that I have ‘‘sympathy’’ for the victims would be a gross understatement. I don’t think Mr. Collins’ feelings matter much at all in the grand scheme of things, and my concern is not for his feelings. If he does in fact have ‘‘sociopathic tendencies’’ then I’m not even really sure he even has feelings in the conventional sense.
I have sympathy for people, in general, who have an expectation of privacy in a mental health setting and that expectation is violated. I care about those people. I don’t think that sympathy represents any legitimate threat to Stephen Collins going to prison for being a child molester. So the implication that somehow my or Second Stone’s opinion has any relevance to his victims not getting justice seems a little farfetched.
[QUOTE=brickbacon]
So you call her a spiteful bitch BEFORE knowing even the basic facts?
[/QUOTE]
Yes, I suppose that’s true. Probably jumped the gun on that one, given my strong personal feelings on the subject. I don’t really think the basic facts are even known at this point, though. It’s very hazy to me what is true and what is conjecture.
[QUOTE=brickbacon]
It wasn’t a breach of confidentiality. How is this not getting through to you? You have no expectation of privacy, particularly when you admit to a crime such as this one, in a group session.
[/QUOTE]
Whether it was a breach of confidentiality in the legal sense is up for the courts to decide. But it’s standard practice in group or couples’ therapy for all parties to at least verbally agree to keep the information confidential and it’s not unusual to have to sign some sort of agreement of confidentiality. So when you say ‘‘you have no expectation of privacy’’ that’s not entirely true.
I’m uncomfortable with what she did. Assuming the facts finally shake out to reveal a solid rationale for her behavior, perhaps I will feel differently. But at this time I am not convinced what she did was necessary for the prosecution and conviction of any crime or the prevention of harm to any person. There seems to be an assumption here that by recording this therapy session, his wife was doing a thing that would protect or help others, and I am not convinced that is the case. I think the only reason anyone should ever violate confidentiality in a mental health treatment setting is if the person is an imminent threat to himself or others. I don’t want to blur the boundaries in any way of what is and is not an acceptable violation of privacy.
If she turned over this tape to authorities in 2012 and there was never any criminal conviction as a result, this raises serious questions for me as to how helpful making that tape actually was.
Yes, but they have been in this process for a while. You think she would get on with the execution of this revenge sooner than now.
Speak for yourself. Second Stone stated it wasn’t even worth locking him up because he is old and it was a long time ago.
Fair enough. I appreciate your admission of error.
Do you honestly think nobody in group session where someone admitted molesting kids would say anything? That is just not a secret you can expect people to keep.
She stated as much in her press release. She apparently did think he was a imminent threat to others at the time. I don’t think we are really in a position to question her judgment.
I believe the statute of limitations had expired. Either way, the tape has pretty much guaranteed he will never be alone with kids, which is a good thing in my opinion.
People during divorce proceedings frequently don’t act logically.
Or there may be more to it than we know.
-
The quote you attribute to her is internally inconsistent several times. I don’t think you are using the word “cite” correctly.
-
“sociopathic tendencies” is not a diagnosis or modifier of a proper diagnosis. Sociopath was out of official psych dx at least three decades ago. Second, the therapist does not share a NPD dx with anyone likely to repeat it to the patient, it is counterproductive. Three, group therapy in California, when done property, is done confidentially. http://www.camft.org/ScriptContent/CAMFTarticles/Confidentiality/ConfidentialityExceptions.htm There are mandatory reporting duties for the therapist, not the other patients.
-
No, you referred to a SageRat post that linked to a section that said that continuous child assaults qualify for third strikes, not that they are as a matter of law considered violent. Unless you are referring to your personal opinion, which you have adequately cited. And yes, I am a really truly licensed California lawyer. You are an incensed internet poster who has a strong opinion about what the law should be and has reading comprehension problems. Child abuse does not necessarily equal violence for the purpose of recording confidential conversations without permission. It may be equivalently punished under the three strikes law, but that syllogism has a number of breaks in logic, including legal logic. I actually looked up to see if there was case that spoke directly to child abuse always being violence for eavesdropping purposes, and it hasn’t been ruled on. For what it is worth, I’ve never met a non-lawyer with a strong sense of their own rightness that would ever recognize that the law is not exactly what they think on first, second, third or umpteenth reading. Just because you are outraged at a child molester and have no respect for doctor/patient privilege doesn’t mean you are right, it means you are outraged. Fair enough.
-
She made the tape and is the only person that has admitted to releasing it to anyone, namely the police in LA and NY. So any number of people could have provided it to TMZ. The police, the evidence clerk, someone who snuck into an evidence room, her lawyer, an employee of her lawyer etc. etc. But without her secretly making the tape, it is safe to say that it wouldn’t have been released to anyone. Her making the tape and distributing it to the police and perhaps others, is what we lawyers call the efficient cause of its distribution. She made a tape with the intent to distribute it, and lo! it is distributed. Depending on your value of “plausible” for deniability, she has denied it. But you know, Mrs. Sandusky denies knowing her husband molested children in their basement for 40 years. Perhaps someone else innocently released it. I don’t really give a shit, the responsibility is hers.
-
Am I worried that my tapes will get out or something? Really? That is an insult that shouldn’t show up in this forum or perhaps any other. I am not a child molester and I resent that you imply such.
That’s certainly possible, but there will be little for her to gain from releasing a tape she already released to police. Furthermore, it’s my understanding that TMZ usually gets its stuff from LE and others involved in government or data collection. It makes much more sense for some in that capacity to release the tape than for his wife to do it at the tail end of a bitter divorce.
Point out those inconsistencies please?
That wasn’t the diagnosis.
Nope, that is your editorializing. There is no guarantee of confidentiality during a group session. It is “encouraged”, but not required, expected, or mandatory.
I have already cited an article outlining why it was legal. The TMZ cite says it was legal. You are pretty much the only person stubbornly foolish enough argue the point despite multiple people saying you are wrong. If you are so sure, please bet me some money. It can go to charity. Name the amount.
And yet, you have completely backtracked from completely illegal to maybe illegal if…
And? She was documenting evidence of a crime. What exactly is your point?
I didn’t say you were a child molester.
-
No, I didn’t say that it isn’t worth locking him up. I’m all for the victims coming forward and prosecuting and locking him up if the statute of limitations has not expired, which I believe the law enforcement personnel said it had. What you are twisting out of context is the old canard from Law & Order SUV that child molesters all repeat themselves before the end of the episode. They do not. The study you pointed to pointed to studies (that’s called a meta study) showing 10 to 50 percent repeated. Less with treatment. And older pedophiles with reduced hormone levels and getting treatment are not necessarily going to repeat. Those were the points I was trying to make. A bit nuanced, but in your case, I can see how your frothing anger led you to believe that, contrary to fact, people pointing out details didn’t agree with your “shoot them all and let God sort them out” response.
-
Having been in group therapy and having signed confidentiality agreements, yeah, I kind of do expect people to honor their word. I know it’s a weird, liberal democrat sort of thing to not instantly go popping off like a know it all madman, but we are liberals and sometimes think before we act. And do therapy. What’s up with that?
-
Wait a minute, you are agreeing that the statute of limitations has expired with those who have opined that? Isn’t that inconsistent with you burning rage? In view of the fact that you think the tape is an adequate punishment for him, that kind of misses the point that it is probably his only punishment, but the wider damage the tape does to every other person needing therapy that is deterred by this episode is the policy beef we are having in this thread. Therapy reduces recidivism for pedophiles and virtually every other criminal activity and a whole lot of suffering for non-criminal activities. In your quest to get Collins, you haven’t just thrown out the baby with the bath water, you’ve managed to empty the fucking Pacific Ocean during a mental health drought.
The compromise that the law has made is that therapists have reporting requirements and lawyers to consult when they believe they might need to. We have Ms. Grant deciding to play Batman the vigilante by perverting therapy into what the public will now see as public confession to be avoided. We have either Ms. Grant, or someone she trusted, leaking the tape to the press and coming to the conclusion that getting help will result in ruin and blackmail, and not getting help.