Axman wrote:You've got it a bit wrong. Your doctors and counselors are not required to report past crimes to authorities, in fact, they're forbidden to do so unless you're presenting a danger to yourself or others, and merely being a repeat offender does not constitute an imminent threat. You have to say something like, "Tomorrow, I'm going to [insert details of crime here]." Otherwise they have to act on your behalf to maintain your relationship.
Not actually true. It varies between jurisdictions; some require doctors to report if they suspect child abuse - at which point law enforcement has the option to pursue prosecution (but rarely does, because they have little to go on most of the time) and if they don't the report is anonymized into statistical data and discarded (this is how it works in Washington).
Federal rules of evidence do not recognize doctor-patient privilege at all. But that has nothing to do with reporting.
It's the same with clergy privilege. First of all, you can't confess something you haven't done, so that wouldn't fit into the box. But you can confess something you have done and they're required, like doctors and counselors, to keep it secret. It doesn't have to be in confession, it just has to be in confidence.
Also false, and in fact I already linked you to the US DHHS page covering that
In fact, the idea of doctor and counselor's privilege comes from the Church, because there was a time when your doctor and counselor were clergymen. It wasn't until after other organizations started producing doctors and counselors that new forms of privileged communication were created.
Um... while I can't find any evidence to support this, it defies reason - which would dictate that physician-patient privilege exists because patients cannot receive good care if they can't trust their doctor. Sort of how if you show up in the ER with bullet holes in you and powder burns on your hand, they're not going to ask if there are bullet holes in the other guy. Said privilege is extended to counselors because they are also health professionals.
There are other problems tied to mandated reporting, not just that they damage confidential relationships, and that's that they make public information pertaining to victims.
Not actually a problem. Again working from Washington state law (but when I researched this a couple months ago most jurisdictions were similar), when doctors report suspected abuse to the state DHHS it's handed off to state-level law enforcement and used as statistical data, then discarded. The State Patrol (what we call it here) then has the option to pursue investigation but again, very rarely does - and victims' anonymity factors heavily into that decision. In fact because of exactly that WA state law does not allow the State Patrol to pursue investigation unless there are repeated credible reports of abuse.
There's a reason why so many children, or rather, the families of children settle out of court under the condition of anonymity, and it's the same reason why so many people don't report any rapes: it's humiliating. Many people prefer the comfort of restitution and privacy over any kind of human justice, which puts them at the center of scandal. It's not to protect abusers, it's not sinister like that.
No, of course the fact that being a rape survivor is considered humiliating doesn't protect rapists and is in no way sinister.
This is what's meant by rape culture. That's really outside the scope of this thread, but... it's not an excuse to protect abusers. I mean, yes, society is downright mean to rape survivors. Thus it is possible for a plaintiff to be a Doe (anonymous) and court records can be sealed - that
is how you protect victims.
But no, you're saying we should just sweep abuse under the rug because it's humiliating to be raped.