Indeed, we all want/expect him to get what’s coming to him and will probably be ticked off if at some point we get a “sorry, not enough/too long ago/too much publicity”. It’s the means by which he was exposed that became a matter of debate, with the corresponding gratuituous casting of aspersions, be they about vindictive bitches sitting on evidence or about insinuating that people who question the method have something to hide themselves.
Is there a reason why you think there needs to be an argument? Even if I grant your point, which I don’t given what I have read in this thread, why must there be an argument as opposed to a discussion about the crime itself? Certainly we could be talking about how he blended in this long or something like that. Instead we are talking about how his wife is an asshole, as if that matters at all.
Really?
As I posted above:
Collins told her, in 1989, that if they had a son he would be able to resist molesting him…as she didn’t realize that he was a molester for another 22-23 years? Seems more like she gave the tape t the cops as divorce proceedings were imminent.
It’s certainly disgusting, but it’s not enough to go to the cops with so I’m not sure what your point is. That she didn’t divorce him then and there? Maybe she hoped he could be reformed. That optimism sounds like something you expressed a few posts ago.
I was objecting to the ‘soon as he realized he was a pedophile’ part.
She also had an anonymous letter to her in 2000 from a previous victim.
Supposedly, those comments were a joke. But either way, I am not sure what your point is. I think it’s obvious there were signs and evidence before she “realized” he was a pedophile in 2012. The point is that many victims like Grant are in denial, and don’t fully recognize what is in front of them. Doubly so when it’s the person you love, and they deny your suspicions are correct.
Perhaps I should have made it clear that she shouldn’t have been talking about therapy sessions at all.
Then consider my responses directed towards the state of therapy with no such protections
Was Collins aware? Lots of people aren’t aware of the specific case laws. Unless he said so specifically, I doubt he was aware. My response is assuming he thought he had confidentiality.
And in answer to your question, no, we’re not talking about wives and husbands secrets. To me the relevant context is patient and doctor.
Calm down, no need for the caps. That may be the law but I’ll wager not many people know the law. The context of his confession matters: if he thought, even wrongly, that the sessions would be private, and that session was made public, then yes it was his fault, but it also means that had he known about it, it may change his attempt at therapy.
The police can, which is why most people know or are told to shut up when talking to them unless they have a lawyer. People don’t know or don’t expect that in a doctor’s office. But that is off topic. The point is that privacy is valuable and people will not willingly give it up. In this case, Collins ignorantly gave it up. Again, its his fault for not knowing the law, but it doesn’t mean that privacy isn’t a valuable commodity to be protected, perhaps with stronger laws after this case came to light. To truly understand what I mean, consider this: What if Collins went back in time and knew that he was being taped and that it was legal to spread those tapes to the public? Do you think he would have confessed then? If not, then you understand how the broken trust hurts the whole industry of therapy. That’s my concern. One pedophile is small potatoes, I want them all to be locked up or cured and Collins’ ex just made that harder
I would like to live in a world where conversations with your doctor, your lawyer, your spouse, and some other people cannot be leaked except in rare cases because I believe holding those conversations as privileged contributes a greater benefit to society than not
First, your analogy needs work. Collins was not part of an open case where he was being sought after by police. Second, conversations with a cop vs. in a doctor’s office are different and require different reporting structures. Third, immanency is often a reason where doctors and others are moved by law to report. Without immanency, one could merely claim to be considering or thinking aloud of an illegal act. Arrest for that is too much like a thought crime. Immanency moves it from a thought crime to actual preventive measures of a crime about to happen. And last, its only in this particular case, where doctors and confidentiality abound, that society benefits. You can plug a dam way before it breaks or brace it in case of breaking, no immanency required there, but also no expectation of privacy either
You’re absolutely wrong. If he isn’t legally barred from doing that, he can still be around kids. There are people who will disbelieve the evidence, or hand-waved it away, or don’t know who Collins is. Time will pass, this case will be forgotten. Justice can only be done if he’s convicted and that’s what I want to happen. Being hated is a poor consolation prize
I’m merely speculating on what I think is the best way
You’re free to believe that
Did I say it did?
Are you seriously asking me to prove that people going to therapy for self-admitted crimes doesn’t constitute a benefit to society?
Fact: People think a lot of bullshit
Fact: Some people thought that any doctor conversations are private
Fact: Some people learned that some doctor conversations are not private
Fact: Their behaviors will change
What do you think confidentiality means? It doesn’t mean a person can never tell, just that there may be professional or possible legal consequences for doing so, or that those comments would be inadmissible in court. It doesn’t require ANYONE to carry your secrets, so there is always a risk that something you tell someone else could come out. The idea that anyone would think their wife (or any third party) would keep such a secret is odd to say the least.
Okay, but the doctor didn’t tell his secrets and did nothing wrong. How is this case related to that at all?
Demonstrably false. Google and Facebook probably knows more about a person than their SO. This is because we willingly give up privacy.
Maybe, maybe not. I think we would all be worse off if he wasn’t taped.
Because some idiot didn’t exercise basic common sense, the whole industry of therapy is hurt? What makes you think the average person has even heard of Collins let alone the details of how he was outed? And if someone one was so inclined to find out the details for self-preservation reasons, don’t you think they already researched the law?
Why? And what does “cannot be leaked” mean? How exactly can you prevent someone from repeating something you told them? How exactly would preventing wives from testifying to marital conversations work? Can the wife not testify when the husband beats the shit out of her and threatens her family? Can your doctor not report when you have a dangerous communicable disease or when you are knowingly infecting people with an STD? And why only those relationships? Can dads testify against their sons? What about two lesbians in a state that bans gay marriage?
It wasn’t an analogy. It was a response to you implication that only people who are an imminent threat should be arrested or outed.
Yes, but not the only reason.
Immanency doesn’t speak to whether one is thinking aloud.
Yes, but no reasonable person will allow him to in an personal or professional capacity. More importantly, he will probably end up being prosecuted.
The only reason he is now being investigated is because the tape was released, and there is public pressure to see the criminal investigation through.
What part is false or even debatable?
Basically. You said:
How does this situation speak to the doctor’s trustworthiness?
Yes. First, therapy doesn’t always work. Second, if it prevents more victims from getting justice, how is that ALWAYS a net positive? Third, the debate is not whether therapy is good, but rather if therapy rather than prosecution is better than the alternatives.
That was not the logical interpretation of the statement you made.
So what you’re telling me is that if I go to therapy with a dirtbag husband and he admits to being a serial rapist/killer, I’m duty bound to carry this information with me to the grave? Giving me nightmares and ulcers and all kinds of psychological problems, all for the sake of looking out for his privacy? This is what I’m hearing from you.
In just another thread in the Pit, there are people arguing it’s perfectly fine and legal that an innocent 18 year-old be jacked up against the wall and interrogated by gun-brandishing cops who’ve barged into his house on the weakest evidence imaginable that he’s a burglar, without so much as giving a courtesy knock first. But let Collins confess to sexually violating children in a therapy session with his wife, and somehow his privacy has to be protected at all costs?
What is wrong with the SDMB this week? I feel like pulling one of these right about now.
QFT
You have a continuing problem.
You hear a claim that “X is constitutional,” and somehow your brain processes that as “X is perfectly fine.”
I mean this in the most helpful sense possible: you should consider taking another look at any claim you’ve concluded represents someone’s argument that a tactic or behavior is perfectly fine. Might it be that the claimant is only making a constitutional claim?
No one in that thread who expressed “X is consititutional” followed up that comment with “…but X is exactly what’s wrong with cops today and their behavior is symptomatic of an abusive, dehumanizing, and invasive police culture.” So I’m perfectly content in keeping my position.
If you released a tape with a confession of a murder or rape that would ruin your husband’s life but not result in his conviction, would that give you more peace?
I’ve only seen this on TV, but it seems like the people who have done that had more psychological problems after they revealed the confession while they attempted to hide their identity and run for their lives from that person.
You may or may not be held responsible for the breach of confidentiality, but that would likely be the least or your worries. Your analogy doesn’t bring out the issues in this case very well.
If it means it’ll be that much more difficult for him to rape and murder again, hell yeah that would give me more peace. Certainly more than doing absolutely nothing.
I’m still not sure if I understand the point being argued here. Do you think me ruining my hypothetical husbands life by releasing his taped confession is an offense worse than all the rapes and murders he has carried out and will likely carry out?
I don’t buy this for a second. But even if it’s true–that taping someone is as psychologically traumatic as protecting someone’s ghastly secrets–it still doesn’t make it wrong to reveal someone else’s confessions. Depending on where someone’s loyalties lie, it could be easy or hard. It probably wasn’t that hard for the wife, if their marriage was rocky. But whose marriage wouldn’t be rocky if their husband was into fucking kids?
If it’s true that Collins is a narcissistic sociopath (and I have no reason to doubt this diagnosis, do I?), then he felt untouchable and not subject to the same laws that govern lesser men’s lives. This is probably why he was able to confess in the first place. He didn’t think anyone would have the balls to punish him for it. In fact, I could see him actually daring his wife to go to the cops. There’s something awesome about her doing just that.
I think some of yall are treating this man like a sympathetic figure for no good reason, and it’s clouding how you view the wife’s actions.
What issues does my analogy miss?
I don’t buy that it will. Depending on why it happened before, the likelihood of it happening again isn’t necessarily diminished by telling more people.
Yes.
You can’t know how likely someone is to do something in the future. As for the past offenses, if he won’t be prosecuted for them, then releasing that information didn’t bring any justice. Whether it stops him for future actions is conjecture. The issue isn’t about ruining his life, it’s about breaching confidentiality which has a chilling effect of the future of the nature of confidential relationships.
Generally, it’s illegal to tape someone secretly. Whether it was legal or not in this case is what some of this thread is about.
You’re adding a LOT of conjecture that doesn’t have any evidence in this case so far. You don’t know how he felt or feels or thinks. You’re stereotyping based on a diagnosis that his wife revealed that may or may not be true.
Nope. I don’t know him. I don’t have any reason to give him any more sympathy than any other stranger I don’t know.
Some of the issues in this thread were about the possible motivations of the wife in revealing the information. Because of the timing and the way it happened, her motivation didn’t seem to be in protecting people but to blackmail him to give her more money.
Sure it is. He was recently fired from multiple projects, some of which he would have had access to kids, and he resigned his post at SAG. He is basically a pariah at this point, and almost no one would willingly leave kids alone with him. Additionally, he may be prosecuted. Something which may only happen because he was outed.
If you believe that, then you cannot simultaneously argue it will have a measurable chilling effect on others seeking therapy in the future.
Justice isn’t measured only in time behind bars. There is some measure of justice in making sure everyone knows this guy is guilty.
First, there was no confidentiality. Two, I think your conjecture regarding this minor case having a chilling effect is nonsense. Will you hesitate telling your friends, family, SO, or therapist information because of this case? Of course not. Any pedophile seeking therapy already knows the law regarding third parties, so this case isn’t going to alert them to something they didn’t realize could happen.
Not really. There are so many exceptions to this that I don’t think it’s a true statement.
It was legal, and that fact has been cited multiple times.
But you have at least a few reasons to NOT grant him any sympathy.
What timing? She didn’t release the tape as far as we know, and that would be perfectly in keeping with logic and common sense. We know she gave the tape to police in 2012. The idea that she would or could use it to extort him now, or to make him look bad makes no sense. If she was wanting a big payout and alimony, it doesn’t help to make the target unemployable. If she was just seeking revenge, she could have released the tape when they first filed for divorce.
Sure, she could have done it. But it would make little sense for her to do so given the expected backlash. Given that several LE had access to the tape, it makes much more sense for one of them to leak it.
I’m not sure what you mean by “why it happened before”. What is “it”? Him molesting the kids he molested? If so, then the “why” for that isn’t mysterious. He had the opportunity and the desire. That was “why”.
None of us but him know whether he’s at risk for molesting more kids. Just like my hypothetical husband is the only one who can control whether he rapes and murders again. But if you don’t think informing the public about Collins’ pedophilia won’t substantially interfere with his access to kids–thus, making it more difficult for him to offend–then that implies you don’t really think releasing his confession has a tangible impact on his life. It somehow “ruins” him without having any effect on his opportunity to offend. That is implausible.
Perhaps not legal justice. But if the person who released the tape (and we don’t know who did) has a good reason to believe Collins is still victimizing children, then one could say there is justice in bringing this confession to light.
It’s already been pointed out, though, that husband and wife communications aren’t confidential. People may want them to be treated confidentially, but legally they aren’t. Whether a conversation should be treated like its confidential depends on the content of that conversation, IMO.
My older sister has discussed with me things that she and husband have talked about during marriage counseling. A lot of it is TMI and is not flattering to her husband, but she is not breaking any rules by sharing this information with me. If this was truly confidential, she’d be wrong just by telling me they were in counseling.
What if my sister learned in counseling that her husband admitted he was attracted to babies and had actually molested their daughters in infancy? According to your view, not only would it be wrong for her share this info with the cops but she couldn’t even tell me. Her sister. Does this make sense to you?
Actually, I’m not making any assumptions. All I know is that Collins confessed to molesting children and may have been diagnosed as a narcissist sociopath. Everyone else who have focused on his wife seem to be working off facts that aren’t evident here like this:
Which to me is weird fixation. Who cares if she was trying to blackmail him or not? You have no way of ascertaining her motives. It’s just as easy to concoct a narrative that casts her as a good, heroic character as it is to imagine a scenario which stars her as a scheming harpy shrew.
Maybe you’re reluctant to demonize Collins. Fair enough. But demonizing his wife implies you know something about Collins that justifies seeing him as a sympathetic person. I’m not seeing any reason to see him sympathetically. Like at all.
The more we post in the same thread, the more we catch the same inconsistencies. Funny huh?
That just keeps him away from those particular children. As has been pointed out, it isn’t possible for someone not to have access to any unattended children at all times and not everyone will have seen this controversy.
If he’s prosecuted, that’s a different situation.
You’re right. You and you with the face have the opinion that releasing the tapes will deter future crimes. I disagree. I have the opinion that it will have a chilling effect on others’ willingness to be open in therapy. You disagree.
Neither of us can tell the future. Our opinions differ. We’re at an impasse.
Not so coincidental. Both of your arguments are based on outrage. The arguments will look alike.
I’m just wading in now, but would like clarification on one point, please… has it been duly established, or is it pure conjecture, that she released the tape? If it’s the latter, that’s really all I need to know.