Heck, it doesn’t even have to be hundreds for her score to be a negative number. All it would take is a few pedophiles who choose not to get therapy.
The person who provided/leaked the tape should IMO be in some deep assed shit as well. What purpose did leaking that tape serve besides some asshole getting paid?
Why? This literally has nothing to do with patient/doctor privilege.
Or maybe a hundred see how this guy’s life has been ruined and decide to actively avoid putting themselves in situations where they are alone with kids. Or maybe 100 others see the destruction he caused, and decide to blow their brains out. Your speculation is based on basically nothing, so unless you have some evidence that this supposed breach of privacy will have a chilling effect on people getting help, and that such decisions are a net positive for society, then I don’t know why we are talking about this.
Furthermore, I cannot think of any other heinous crime where people think we are better off ceding the prevention of said crime to the the criminals hoping they unilaterally decide to get therapy with the hope that might “cure” them. Should we do the same with serial rapists and murderers? I don’t know anyone that thought the Catholic church’s decision to opt for in-house treatment and justice was fair or reasonable, yet you essentially endorsing the same thing under the guise that therapy might lead to fewer victims.
Maybe some people think that. I don’t. I also don’t really care to prioritize their getting help over justice for victims.
Or, you if believe that public shaming and possible arrest cannot change behaviors either. It works both ways.
It pretty much ensured Collins would never be alone with kids again.
When I see someone’s rights being diminished because they are an object of hatred, I think “I could be an object of hatred and then people would want to take away my rights. I want to protect people’s rights so that my rights are protected.”
Having rights protects good people and horrible people alike. Get rid of rights for the horrible people and you risk someone, somewhere, deciding you’re one of the horrible people.
You don’t have to be a trade unionist to fear what can happen to them can happen to you.
What if she hadn’t taped the confession, but rather told the cops what he said in therapy. Would this be okay with you? If legally she was not required to keep that information confidential, she could’ve gotten in trouble by not reporting it.
All a taped confession does is provide more compelling evidence of a crime than a first or second-hand account does.
I don’t know the relevant case law, but I’m open to proof showing that a 3rd party recording a private session between doctor and patient has no confidentiality protection.
Irrelevant. Pedophiles already know there is harsh punishment and condemnation of their acts. They don’t need examples to reinforce it. Claiming that they don’t know the consequences of their actions until Collins’ story went public is ignorant. The only novel thing about this story is the secret taped confessions. Any change in behavior by pedophiles would be influenced by that fact and its obvious that the direction they will be moved is: confessions in a doctor’s office can be disseminated therefore don’t talk to doctors and don’t confess
Breaches of privacy are not limited to child molestation. We have already determined as a culture that privacy is a valuable commodity even within law enforcement, which is why police can’t go on fishing expeditions with no warrant and they can’t pull you over without cause to search you
False dichotomy. No one is only using hope as a potential cure for pedophilia, the debate is between privacy in the face of a crime. And many people do feel that unauthorized leaks of private information, or information obtained illegally, is and should be off limits in terms of prosecution. Suppose when this goes into a court of law and the judge suppresses the tapes and Collins gets off, would you feel that things were still handled perfectly and that nothing needed to change? A reasonable person might conclude that leaking the tapes was not the best course of action, that maybe the report needed to come from authorized sources and mandated reporters who know the difference between recalling crimes from years ago vs. an imminent threat that needed to be reported.
Consider that while villified, Collins could conceivably be free walking the streets in the future. Is justice done because he is hated?
Your mistake is that you think I’m advocating criminals should get help themselves in lieu of punishment and public shame. I’m not, so you can drop that line of questioning. There is a right way, an effective way, of doing things, and there’s a wrong way of doing things
Your error is that the church hid active child molesters and denied an imminent threat, its not the same thing with Collins
Again you’re confusing several things. Outed pedophiles already face public shaming and arrest, everybody knows that. We’re not talking about what would happen to them if everybody knew about their crimes. What we’re talking about is the method of disseminating the information. Now pedophiles know that doctor’s can’t be trusted, even when confessions happen in the act of treatment. That means they are less likely to get treatment. Pedophiles are not walking around ignorant of the public’s hatred of them nor the desire of law enforcement to catch them. But they are ignorant of how easily a private conversation with a doctor can become public. Now they know better, now they’ll correct that behavior, now less of them will go to doctors. Do you understand that logic?
Whatever you think pedophiles feel about public shaming and arrest, THEY ALREADY FEEL THAT WAY! All they can do is hide it, and now they know one method is unreliable, so they will be smarter about that in the future. We’ve essentially tipped them off on how we plan to capture them and now they’ll change their hiding places. They’re not going to change their behaviors because they all know what would happen to them if they are outed
I don’t understand the basis for the bolded part. Legal trouble? Based on what?
I don’t know the reporting requirements by law, so I can’t give you a direct answer. My response is contingent on several factors
As I understand it, if he wasn’t an imminent threat to a child, the conversation was confidential (and I’m open to someone proving me wrong) because its with a doctor.
I’m also not sure of what her, as a 3rd party to the session, responsibilities are to report. If she had no responsibilities either way, then sure, talk to the cops about it.
Also, taped conversations are often part of a larger jurisdiction, some states allow one party to tape another without consent, some require both. If it required the consent of both, then she should not have taped it nor given it out
If the law is on Collins side about confidentiality or if its on his side regarding taped sessions, then what could happen is that in a court of law, the confessions may be thrown out. Then you don’t get Collins’ in jail, you get frustration and anger at a pedophile you can’t touch because his wife was too eager to hurt him to realize what she did would come back to bite her
Now if there is no law against what she did or the secret tapes, there’s still the matter of patient confidentiality. Violating that and making it known to people that what they say with their doctor may be disseminated is a bad outcome and may lead to more criminals hiding than trying to get help. So she STILL shouldn’t have released the tape in that case either
What she ultimately should have done is leave the decision to the doctor and take herself out of it, assuming he does the right thing
Yet again we’ve got a majority of people who misapprehend the law. It would be unlawful for the THERAPIST to release taped sessions (or to tape without consent). There are exceptions in the all-party consent law for violating it in certain situations; it is very fact-specific.
Why he would be talking about child molesting in a COUPLES/marital therapy session instead of an individual therapy, I’ve no idea (and I presume such is the case; I’ve no intention of listening to recordings). He chose to reveal the information to his wife in whatever ways – or she found out – and he chose to discuss them. Responsibility for fallout lies squarely on him.
Short-sighted if not worse to categorize that the wife is the bad guy for revealing this (whether in the divorce action and it was leaked, or someone in her circle leaked). You have no idea whether she said “Stephen, whether or not you turn yourself in, I’m using this in the divorce.” The notion of it being done for “revenge” is ludicrous, given the fallout to her in terms of shame and exposure.
This is the same nonsense that employers deploy when someone decides to expose wrongdoing only once they are in a place of safety or have nothing much left to risk or lose (job, food, housing). They are labeled the “disgruntled employee with an ax to grind” instead of (if belatedly) doing the right thing. Yes, people sometimes do the right thing for the wrong reasons or the correct thing but not the right thing … or the wrong thing for the wrong reasons. Virtually everyone has done and will do, so best not to throw stones.
This will not keep the wingnuts from condemnation of Faye G in an easy but peculiar blame game, not unlike people who find out their significant other or love has fallen for or is boinking someone else or emotionally attached in a way that isn’t welcome (whether or not that situation may be all that’s keeping your relationship together or revelation is the only thing that will tear it apart aside). Such immature or dumb people find it emotionally, psychologically and practically more simple and satisfying (but a fail on the integrity test) to direct their ire toward the third party instead of solely at the person with whom they (tend to) remain in a relationship (or “relationship”). Why you’d possibly have to break up with that person and lose X-Y-Z or be alone, so it’s a lot simpler to spew the hatred toward a third party who did NOT break any agreement with you and did not “steal” this person’s attention, and did not hold a gun to his/her head. Illogic of the dynamic will never compute to me.
Well, since she was his wife, probably not legal trouble. But social trouble, definitely yes. Her friends, family, neighbors, and anonymous jerks on the internet would likely see her as just as guilty if his crimes came to light in the absence of her doing anything about it.
If I were married to someone and learned that they’d been molesting children (or any other heinous crime) during a therapy session, I wouldn’t be able to live with keeping that a secret. But I’m sensing from some of these posts, I’d be ethically obligated to keep my mouth shut about it, tape or no tape.
My conscience doesn’t work that way, though. I’m totally not going to suffer in silence, knowing that there are an untold number of kids out there getting diddled, just for the sake of the perpetrator’s privacy. If that makes me a bad person, I can live that.
But confidential is confidential. There is no real difference between taping a confession and sharing it with the cops and listening to a confession and regurgitating it to the cops. If one is wrong, so is the other.
So if you’re saying it was ethically wrong for her to tape the conversation, but it’s somehow not wrong to go to the cops with the claim that “my husband just confessed in therapy to doing X, Y, and Z”, then I’m struggling to understand why you think this. Like I said, all a tape does is corroborate a claim. It strengthens the credibility of what an accuser is claiming, not creating a claim out of whole cloth.
bolding mine.
Well, thats nice. But nobody here is arguing for that.
Speaking for no one but myself, I don’t think the wife had any ethical obligation to remain silent, since she was present for the session. I definitely question the legality of the act of the recording and what knowledge she had of her husband’s activities prior to that session. Nevertheless, I hope this guy’s victims see some benefit from this now having come to light.
The sad part is…she didn’t learn about his molestering ways in the therapy session.
So she did exactly what you said. Suffered in silence, knowing an untold number of kids get diddled just for the sake of privacy and comfort. Maybe her privacy and comfort.
She knew for more than 20 years. And she stayed with him. THEN she tapes a therapy session. Tape gets leaked after he sues her for divorce. (and she says SHE didn’t leak it)
This is not a courageous whistle-blower, and she could have blown the whistle decades ago(and people would have listened even he didn’t face charges). And she could have done it without taping the therapy session.
There’s that Catch-22 again.
I don’t know if she’s a courageous whistler blower or not, but to me that is irrelevant in determining whether she was wrong to tape his confession and share it with the cops.
Undoubtedly if she hadn’t, fewer people would know how messed up he is. That’s more potential victims who could cross his path.
Undoubtedly if she hadn’t, more people would question the truthfulness of any accusations she’d made. That’s more people out there calling her a liar.
Undoubtedly if she hadn’t, cops would have less evidence to pursue a case. Not that they acted on the tape anyway, but hindsight is 20/20.
So why again, is she taking more flak in this discussion than he is? Because it’s not 100% evident her motives were pure as the fallen snow? I feel like I am missing something.
I suspect a good portion of it is that there’s really nothing to argue about over Stephen Collins’ actions. Everyone’s pretty much on the same page about him being a shitheel. His ex wife’s actions are open to some interpretation, so here we are, four pages later.
She’s taking flak for making the tape.
I don’t think anyone is saying she lying about the molestation charges. She may be lying about who released the tape, but I cannot say for sure.
Molestation and marriages is always a bit twisted. People married to molesters often make puzzling, for lack of a better word, decisions. Definitely some weird psychology going on there.
What you read here is pure opinion, so…ya know…don’t ask for a cite or nuthin.
Maybe the optimist hasn’t been beaten out of me yet. I still believe that people can and do change. I believe in redemption. I believe that some people desperately need and can benefit from therapy. For people to benefit from therapy, they have to be honest…they need to open up. To do that, they need to feel safe.
They now have a reason not to. They have a reason not to trust a therapeutic environment. Meaning they may not open up in therapy or seek help at all. Meaning their pain goes on longer than it needs to. Their possibility for change, for redemption, is compromised. The specifics of why the tape was made are irrelevant. The result could be damage to a lot of people she isn’t aware of.
So yeah, she is gonna get some flak. IMO, the damage she has done far outweighs any good that could have come from it. She could of taped him in the bedroom, in the car, in their living room, intercepted e-mail…wouldn’t care. But taping in therapy is off limits.
Just in this thread, plenty of people have disbelieved her when she said she didn’t release the tape. Given this, I’m inclined to think her word would be similarly questioned or outright rejected if she’d accused him of being a child molester without the proof contained in the tape.
This is where a lot my Catch-22 vibes are coming from. Convincing people that a well-liked celebrity–even a D-lister like this one–is a pedophile is not easy if you don’t have hard proof. There are a lot of risks that come with making a scathing allegation like that. Previous to the tape, the cops were informed about his behavior but the evidence apparently wasn’t strong enough to act on. So she obtained stronger evidence in the form of a taped confession. Probably to protect herself in case others doubted her.
To me, once someone has shown a pattern of hurting people in life-traumatizing, felonious ways, then they shouldn’t expect non-professionals to bend over backwards to protect their privacy … I could see some yall’s point-of-view if this was a case of Collins admitting something embarrassing but inconsequential to anyone else. If he “confessed” to picking his nose and eating the boogers, then it would be ethically wrong for her to tape and disseminate that. But child molestation is nothing like that.
I think this focus on the “puzzling psychology” of people married to child sex offenders is misplaced. This tendency of us to pick apart the spouses of these perpetrators rather than the perpetrators creates a disincentive for spouses to come forward sooner. Didn’t you just fault her doing that in your previous post? This hurts any credibility you have when you say this about pedophiles:
“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.”
Sorry, but that’s just an intellectually convenient flimsy pretext/excuse for not doing what they do not want to do (you can apply this concept to pretty much anything a human wants to avoid … excuses, excuses). They can go to a therapist that is not aligned with a department. Unless they disclose that they *intend *to (not just fantasize about) harm(ing) someone, it will remain confidential. If they’re worried about using employer-sponsored insurance because they believe there is no chinese wall (but there is), then they know or can discover innumerable work-arounds.
So any friend or acquaintance who deploys this “I can’t!” nonsense, you need to kindly and firmly call bullshit on it and even offer to find them someone to see and make an appointment That is, if one cares about someone’s well-being and isn’t a moral or emotional wimp who just gets the heebies when anything like psychological torment is the topic.
We already linked to this. Collins had no protection.
Yet, they are moved by examples of a wife not keeping her husband’s secret? They are most assuredly aware that a 3rd party has no obligation to keep their secret, so this outing should have no effect either.
Which would be a stupid parsing of the fact given the actual takeaway (if there is one) is, “confessions in a doctor’s office can be disseminated BY ANY THIRD PARTY YOU WILLINGLY INVITE INTO THE OFFICE, therefore don’t talk to doctors and don’t confess WHEN OTHER PEOPLE WHO HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO KEEP YOUR SECRET ARE PRESENT”.
Yet, police can surreptitiously record you when you admit to things in front of them.
What is the rest of this sentence?
Then you basically wouldn’t be able to convict thousands of people. Do you really want to live in a world where “private” conversations between criminals cannot be leaked?
I doubt this will happen. Frankly, the tape in and of itself is not THAT great a piece of evidence. People lie in therapy, there may be issues confirming it’s authenticity, etc. What will convict him will be concrete old school evidence and testimony. The tape is just a corroboration of all that.
Why? Is it your contention that society only benefits when people who are an imminent threat are arrested? Why should that be the standard? I can just imagine some fuckface saying, “Officer, why am I being arrested for those rapes I committed 5 years ago. It was FIVE years ago. I’m not an imminent threat. I am in therapy. Leave me alone.”
Partly. That and he won’t be allowed to be around kids in all likelihood.
Fine. Why do you get to decide what is the “wrong” way. Why is it the “wrong” way despite being legal, ethical, and moral in the eyes of many? Especially, when it is likely the only thing that will allow his victims to get justice and prevent him from ever acting again.
Bullshit. The Church took most of the flak for not reporting these guys to the police. A lot of what the Church did was move priests to places or positions where they would not be around kids in a selfish and misguided effort to stop them from being able to act. That end result is the BEST outcome when one of these pieces of shit goes to therapy. Now you can argue that actively acknowledging the issue and working through it via therapy is healthier than essentially ignoring it and moving the person to a place where they cannot act. However, the end result is basically the same; neither criminal will likely act again. The problem with both approaches is that it completely ignores the damage they have done with their actions, and the rights of victims to seek justice.
Everyone knows you cannot admit crimes to people who don’t have a duty to protect you.
How does this reflect at all on the doctor?
Please provide a cite that the above is true, and that it is a net positive for society?
You are basing this on absolutely nothing.
Well, there is knowing and there is KNOWING. She claims she didn’t know until 2012, and the idea that an anonymous letter would convince her her husband was a child molester is pretty weak. More so because criminals like Collins often groom and intimidate people around them in the same way they do their victims. She is just a victim of his as well, and if she choose to believe his lies for longer than she should have, that doesn’t mean she “knew”. Think about it. If you got a letter saying your SO or your parents were murderers, would you immediately go to the cops or even think it was worthy of intense scrutiny?
So you are are worried a tape will have a chilling effect on pedophiles seeking treatment, but not that impugning the motives of, and criticizing every move a whistle blower makes won’t prevent others from speaking out? Odd sense of priorities.
Also, worth noting that she gave the tape to cops in 2012, shortly after she realized he was a pedophile.
From what I have read, the alleged abuse occurred in 1972. At least one of the victims was 14 and Collins would have been around 25.