9please bear with me, my right capital key and space bar have raised the red flag of rebellion against me.0
We can agree, I think, that the Common Law in no case makes failure to report a crime. I have long heard of instances where failure to report in a crime in itself. Still, I cannot think of a specific instance where this is true.
(A thread in The Pit makes an oblique reference to one such case.)
Is there a general rule? Does a requirement to report violate the protection against self-incrimination? How about protected relationships (can your doctor or priest be charged for not dropping a dime on you)?
On the face of it, a requirement to report seems to go against lots of legal tradition. What is the earliest example of such a thing?
When the nuns taught me in grade school, they impressed on me that the “Seal of the Confessional” is so absolutely sacrosanct that priests have to let themselves be killed rather than spill the beans. Is this true?
That’s true. Priests are not allowed to reveal what has been confessed to them. If lawmakers don’t like that, then there are going to be problems, but the vow of silence does not go away.
It is called “misprision” – as in, “misprision of treason” or “misprision of felony” and yes, it was a crime at common law. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misprision.
The law does recognize priest-penitent confidentiality, at least in the U.S., and no court can lawfully compel a priest to reveal what he heard in the confessional. Just as the law recognizes attorney-client confidentiality.
OTOH – if a client told a lawyer he was planning to kill somebody (not that he already had done so), the lawyer would be both legally and professionally-ethically obligated to notify the police.
I don’t know if the same rule would apply to a priest.
I’m not sure, but at least in the U.K., priests are supposed to tell the police when someone has confessed to a major crime, but no more. So if John Smith told Reverend Jones that he’d murdered Jane Smith, Rev. Jones would go to the police and say that someone has confessed to a murder, but not name either John Smith or Jane Smith.
Actually, this varies by state. I understand that some states’ attorney disciplinary codes require lawyers to disclose serious crimes, some states permit but do not require lawyers to disclose crimes, and (I believe still) some states prohibit lawyers from disclosing crimes.
For instance, New York Disciplinary Rule 4-101(c)(3) provides: “A lawyer may reveal: . . . (3) The intention of a client to commit a crime and the information necessary to prevent the crime.” (emphasis added) So, as a New York lawyer, if a client told me that he were going to commit a crime, I could disclose it, but I would not be required to.
Like Billdo pointed out, this isn’t true in all jurisdictions. In fact, in my jurisdiction, I am permitted to disclose that my client plans to kill somebody, but I am not required to do so.
If it helps, the “sion” in misprision is pronounced like the “sion” in tension.
Are you certain of this? It seems to be a very silly rule. So a priest is supposed to walk into the police station and announce “some person killed some other person”? Absent any names or other description, that seems to me to be a completely useless piece of information.
Would the priest be allowed (as per the priest code) to try and stop the murder himself? It doesn’t seem very holy to allow a murder to happen… maybe it is better for the priest to commit a minor sin by breaking the man’s legs, rather than allow the potential murder to commit a major sin.
I seem to remember a made-for-tv movie with this premise. A serial killer confessed his sins to a priest, but wouldn’t turn himself in to the police, so the priest goes after the guy himself. I don’t know what the rules would be in the real world, however.
Alberta has something similar, but skips the long list of “mandated reporters”. See Responding to Child Abuse Section 4(1) of the Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act states:
“ANY PERSON who has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that
a child is in need of intervention shall forthwith report the matter to a
director.”
This covers the legal aspect of it but does the Bar Association say anything about this (be it state or national)? That is, while you may not be prosecuted for failing to report a client’s intention to commit a crime could you be disbarred?
