Stephen Collins, say it ain't so!

[Typo_Negative]

Maybe this thread should be in the pit?

[The_Second_Stone]

@brickbacon

I didn’t say you were a child molester.

You absolutely snidely implied it.

@brickbacon

Are you worried your tapes will get out or something?

Who the hell do you think you are?

[brickbacon]

Let’s just put this, “was it legal” thing to bed once and for all. Here are multiple cites outlining the legal issue. The audience can weight them against your initial claim that it was always illegal, then that the addendum didn’t apply because it wasn’t a violent felony, then acknowledgment that it might apply depending on a ruling on the issue.

Here is the first cite:

Normally, there is a sacrosanct privilege which protects conversations between therapists and patients, although it is waived if a third party attends. It is unclear if the presence of Collins’s wife constitutes a third party. But it doesn’t matter. It wasn’t the therapist who breached the privilege. It was the actor’s wife. She can do so, even if she was a participant in couples counseling.

Moreover, there is no therapist-patient privilege that protects what is heard on the tape-recording. Both New York and California have strict laws that impose an affirmative duty on therapists to report to authorities any evidence of child abuse. Therapists must also report any patient who might pose a danger to others, including children. So, forget any principles of confidentiality.

Please note the article was written by a former defense attorney.

And another article reporting her lawyer told her it was legal:

Grant secretly recorded the session under the advisement of her lawyer, who told her it was legal in California to record conversations in order to gather evidence on a person who has committed a violent felony.

Another article:

The confession was part of a therapy session during which Collins might have expected confidentiality. But California law allows the recording of private conversations without both parties’ consent if the taping is an effort to gather evidence of a felony. Child molestation is a felony. Collins, unaware that he was being taped, is very specific about incidents in which he exposed himself to underage girls. The names of the victims have been redacted on the audio. One of Collin’s victims was an 11-year-old relative of his first wife. The tape was made in 2012.

So, of course ALL of those and other sources could be wrong. But you would have to believe TMZ (whose lawyers vet everything that goes up on their site, and who usually don’t post illegally obtained material) was wrong about this, that Grant’s own lawyer was wrong, and that the Fox News, who spelled out in explicit detail why it’s legal, is also wrong (possible given it’s source, but not likely).

But if you feel it’s more likely that some random stranger on the internet is right, feel free to back him, the guy who thinks the wife is a bigger criminal than a pedophile.

[brickbacon]

@The_Second_Stone

1. No, I didn’t say that it isn’t worth locking him up.

You snidely implied it.

@The_Second_Stone

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.

LOL. That’s rich. and of course, completely irrelevant to whether he should be arrested.

@The_Second_Stone

Having been in group therapy and having signed confidentiality agreements, yeah, I kind of do expect people to honor their word.

Please present a cite that she gave her word or signed any agreement.

@The_Second_Stone

Isn’t that inconsistent with you burning rage?

Burning rage? Do you really think it takes burning rage, as opposed to say common decency, to think maybe the blame and focus should be on the pedophile and not his wife who has done nothing wrong that we know of.

@The_Second_Stone

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.

I doubt that will be his only punishment. There were multiple admissions, some of which are still prosecutable.

@The_Second_Stone

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.

More nonsensical rambling.

@The_Second_Stone

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.

Why are you prioritizing some piece of shit getting help over a victim getting justice.

@The_Second_Stone

You absolutely snidely implied it.

I disagree, but I am sorry you feel that way and took offense.

[The_Second_Stone]

@brickbacon

I disagree, but I am sorry you feel that way and took offense.

Well, you are disagreeable and I’m certainly sorry that you said it. And I did take offense. It would really make me feel a lot better to meet you in person. Are you going to be in the San Francisco area anytime soon?

[brickbacon]

@The_Second_Stone

Well, you are disagreeable and I’m certainly sorry that you said it. And I did take offense. It would really make me feel a lot better to meet you in person. Are you going to be in the San Francisco area anytime soon?

LOL. Maybe. Did you want to make that bet in person, or just give me really terrible legal advice?

[The_Second_Stone]

I don’t practice criminal law, and I’m not a betting man.

[Sage_Rat]

@The_Second_Stone

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.

Eh? The quote was quite specific:

“A conviction under Penal Code Section 288.5 is considered a violent or serious felony and will count as a ‘strike’ under California’s Three Strikes Law.”

[Heffalump_and_Roo]

@Sage_Rat

The words that they write are not condoning his actions in any way.

But say, for example, that I don’t see any logic behind bestiality laws. I would probably not enact such a law if I was supreme dictator. But the presence or non-presence of such a law really doesn’t affect me at all since I don’t have any desire to have sex with an non-human animal. So while I’d vote against such a law if it came down to me to decide, I wouldn’t seek out becoming the person who makes that decision nor would I get into an impassioned internet wars over the subject. It simply isn’t something that pings my radar in any way, so why put any effort - let alone passion - into it?

If I see someone parading down the street, with a big pro-marijuana sign, my tendency is to believe that the person with that sign smokes pot. If I see someone deathly frightened by the idea that a person’s crimes might result in punishment, I just don’t tend to think, “Well there’s someone selflessly sticking up for the rights of others!”

no u

You’ve now posted 5 posts in this thread, the last of which has bold large letters. Wouldn’t you consider that impassioned? Is there something you’re trying to announce?

[The_Second_Stone]

@Sage_Rat

Eh? The quote was quite specific:

“A conviction under Penal Code Section 288.5 is considered a violent or serious felony and will count as a ‘strike’ under California’s Three Strikes Law.”

For the purposes of the three strikes law. I don’t see that as for all purposes.
288.5 itself doesn’t contain the word violent at all.

288.5. (a) Any person who either resides in the same home with the
minor child or has recurring access to the child, who over a period
of time, not less than three months in duration, engages in three or
more acts of substantial sexual conduct with a child under the age of
14 years at the time of the commission of the offense, as defined in
subdivision (b) of Section 1203.066, or three or more acts of lewd
or lascivious conduct, as defined in Section 288, with a child under
the age of 14 years at the time of the commission of the offense is
guilty of the offense of continuous sexual abuse of a child and shall
be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a term of 6, 12,
or 16 years.
(b) To convict under this section the trier of fact, if a jury,
need unanimously agree only that the requisite number of acts
occurred not on which acts constitute the requisite number.
(c) No other act of substantial sexual conduct, as defined in
subdivision (b) of Section 1203.066, with a child under 14 years of
age at the time of the commission of the offenses, or lewd and
lascivious acts, as defined in Section 288, involving the same victim
may be charged in the same proceeding with a charge under this
section unless the other charged offense occurred outside the time
period charged under this section or the other offense is charged in
the alternative. A defendant may be charged with only one count under
this section unless more than one victim is involved in which case a
separate count may be charged for each victim.

That means child molestation is considered violent as a tag along to the three strikes law for the purposes of sentencing, not for general purposes, nor for the specific purpose of secretly recording. I get that you guys have found a section that says it is violent for three strikes sentencing. But you don’t seem to understand that when something is defined in a limited way for a narrow application, that it isn’t broadly used by that definition. The special definition applies only to the subset.

[twickster]

Since y’all are are acting as though this is in the Pit, I’ll move it there.

[E-DUB]

Putting aside the actual crime involved and focusing narrowly only on the issue of the tape. It seems to me that if husband-wife communication is privileged and patient-therapist communication is as well, you could hardly be expected to lose privilege when talking to both at once.

[brickbacon]

@The_Second_Stone

For the purposes of the three strikes law. I don’t see that as for all purposes.

Are you still on this? Why can’t you just admit you were wrong?

@E-DUB

Putting aside the actual crime involved and focusing narrowly only on the issue of the tape. It seems to me that if husband-wife communication is privileged and patient-therapist communication is as well, you could hardly be expected to lose privilege when talking to both at once.

Husband wife communication isn’t privileged.

[The_Second_Stone]

@E-DUB

Putting aside the actual crime involved and focusing narrowly only on the issue of the tape. It seems to me that if husband-wife communication is privileged and patient-therapist communication is as well, you could hardly be expected to lose privilege when talking to both at once.

Either spouse can waive the spousal privilege.

[madrabbitwoman]

@even_sven

I knew we had our rape apologists on the board, but I’m pretty surprised at this conversation.

If you want a confidential therapy session, don’t invite other people in. If you don’t want your child molestation to reflect poorly on you in a divorce (as well as otherwise ruin your life), don’t molest kids.

I don’t care if she is a vindictive bitch or not. Whatever her motivations, she no doubt saved some kids from harm.

What a load of crap.
Presently this pile of shit is causing an enormous pile of harm to his victims, other peoples victims, mentally ill folks with paranoid tendencies (right you are totally not being recorded in your therapy sessions - believe us we wont lie!). All this triggery shit is all over the telly at present AND IT IS CAUSING HARM just by being all over the fucking telly.

[even_sven]

@madrabbitwoman

What a load of crap.

Presently this pile of shit is causing an enormous pile of harm to his victims, other peoples victims, mentally ill folks with paranoid tendencies (right you are totally not being recorded in your therapy sessions - believe us we wont lie!). All this triggery shit is all over the telly at present AND IT IS CAUSING HARM just by being all over the fucking telly.

If those people are too freaking idiotic to not realize inviting a third party to their “list the little girls you molested” chat is a bad idea, I’m not sure what can help them.

[Sage_Rat]

@even_sven

If those people are too freaking idiotic to not realize inviting a third party to their “list the little girls you molested” chat is a bad idea, I’m not sure what can help them.

Technically, I think it’s a great idea. Add fourth and fifth parties as well.

Don’t worry, molesters, it’s good to open up and let the world know what you’ve done. You’ll feel better about it, I swear.

[you_with_the_face]

What’s funny is that on another board I frequent, the ex-wife was excoriated for not going to the police with this tape sooner. Here, she’s excoriated for creating the tape.

If she hadn’t created the tape and had simply gone to the police with a story, this would have been a case of he said/she said. And people inclined to think she was trying to libel the guy to win a nice divorce settlement would be calling her the same names they are calling her now.

But if she’d kept mum and just left him quietly, she’d be committing a McQueary and everyone would be accusing her of aiding and abetting a pedophile the minute one of his victims had the courage to speak out publically.

Catch-22, anyone? What should the ex-wife have done? If he confessed to committing felonies in the presence of someone not legally bound to kept it confidential, then she did the right thing by taping it. It’s a cost-benefits calculation. His privacy is not worth more than the safety and well-being of one of his victims or potential victims.

[YogSothoth]

@you_with_the_face

Catch-22, anyone? What should the ex-wife have done? If he confessed to committing felonies in the presence of someone not legally bound to kept it confidential, then she did the right thing by taping it. It’s a cost-benefits calculation. His privacy is not worth more than the safety and well-being of one of his victims or potential victims.

Seems like the people taking the wife’s side are short-sighted and don’t feel that undermining the patient/doctor privilege would lead to harm. As long as THIS pedophile gets caught, they reason, then what she did was good. No matter if a hundred more declines to try to talk about their crimes with a shrink, declines try to get help on their own, and continues to molest kids, at least THIS guy was caught. Simple human nature makes it more satisfying to get a point for your side than prevent one for the other, because you see the point you get and you can only infer the other side and even write them off. I wouldn’t be surprised if these people thought pedophiles never go to shrinks (with the exception of Collins) and can never be helped and will always offend until they are caught or dead

What she should have done is not made the tape, keep the trust between doctor and patient. Sure, it would make his specific case harder to prove, and Collins might even get off, but a hundred pedophiles right now would not be reconsidering their attempt to talk about their problems and get help to stop what they’re doing. As far as I’m concerned, the wife stopped Collins but enabled a hundred more. Her “saved kids” score is in the negatives, its almost like she personally molested a hundred kids herself. That’s not a person you want to look up to to hail as a hero, that’s a shitty asshole.

Of course, this can be hand-waved away easily if you believe in 2 simple things: psychiatry can’t change anyone’s behaviors, and pedophiles don’t try to seek help on their own. Believe that, and you can laud the wife’s actions to your heart’s content without hypocrisy. But you’d be wrong

[even_sven]

Well, that or you can still get therapy, just don’t invite an audience.