Catholic Confessional Seal Part 2 - Supreme Court

[Neo Rome Republic]

Yes. Catching criminals matters FAR more, sacredness be damned.

It only works for catching criminals one time, though.

Because a couple of years after you force priests to tell the police what they heard in confession, criminals will simply stop confessing their crimes to priests, and then you will have violated a religion's core beliefs for nothing.

You don't know that. Perhaps they will still be confessing to Priests. Besides, better to catch as many rapists and murders as we can, rather than let them get away, because of some speculated crime trends in the future.

[Cata Larga]

It only works for catching criminals one time, though.

Because a couple of years after you force priests to tell the police what they heard in confession, criminals will simply stop confessing their crimes to priests, and then you will have violated a religion's core beliefs for nothing.

You don't know that. Perhaps they will still be confessing to Priests. Besides, better to catch as many rapists and murders as we can, rather than let them get away, because of some hypothetical crime in the future that might happen.

After a high profile Supreme Court case that will likely be covered by national news media? Criminals are not as stupid as you may think.

[Neo Rome Republic]

You don't know that. Perhaps they will still be confessing to Priests. Besides, better to catch as many rapists and murders as we can, rather than let them get away, because of some hypothetical crime in the future that might happen.

After a high profile Supreme Court case that will likely be covered by national news media? Criminals are not as stupid as you may think.

Still, better to catch the ones that have committed the crimes, then speculate on the ones that have not happened yet.

[Wisconsin9]

You don't know that. Perhaps they will still be confessing to Priests. Besides, better to catch as many rapists and murders as we can, rather than let them get away, because of some hypothetical crime in the future that might happen.

After a high profile Supreme Court case that will likely be covered by national news media? Criminals are not as stupid as you may think.

So, what, we let some get away now because if we don't then some will get away later, even if the same number get away later in both scenarios?

[Cata Larga]

After a high profile Supreme Court case that will likely be covered by national news media? Criminals are not as stupid as you may think.

So, what, we let some get away now because if we don't then some will get away later, even if the same number get away later in both scenarios?

In Roman Catholic confessionals, the only way to achieve repentance for such a major crime as this is to turn oneself into the authorities. I'd be willing to say we'd get more criminals if we let the seal stay, as at least some (pious) criminals would prefer a cold cell for life to a hot Hell for eternity.

[Wisconsin9]

So, what, we let some get away now because if we don't then some will get away later, even if the same number get away later in both scenarios?

In Roman Catholic confessionals, the only way to achieve repentance for such a major crime as this is to turn oneself into the authorities. I'd be willing to say we'd get more criminals if we let the seal stay, as at least some (pious) criminals would prefer a cold cell for life to a hot Hell for eternity.

Where the fuck was their piety when they were raping someone or cutting a person's throat?

[Cata Larga]

In Roman Catholic confessionals, the only way to achieve repentance for such a major crime as this is to turn oneself into the authorities. I'd be willing to say we'd get more criminals if we let the seal stay, as at least some (pious) criminals would prefer a cold cell for life to a hot Hell for eternity.

Where the fuck was their piety when they were raping someone or cutting a person's throat?

If they're going to a confessional, I'd wager they at least have some remaining ties to religious faith.

[Neo Rome Republic]

So, what, we let some get away now because if we don't then some will get away later, even if the same number get away later in both scenarios?

In Roman Catholic confessionals, the only way to achieve repentance for such a major crime as this is to turn oneself into the authorities. I'd be willing to say we'd get more criminals if we let the seal stay, as at least some (pious) criminals would prefer a cold cell for life to a hot Hell for eternity.

I don't recall too many Priests in the Catholic Church, willingly turning themselves in for when they molested kids. I highly doubt so many confessing rapists would do any different. Besides, the twisted often find a way to justify their deeds. With Religion or without.

[Yugoshvanka]

State atheism is the answer

[Neo Rome Republic]

Where the fuck was their piety when they were raping someone or cutting a person's throat?

If they're going to a confessional, I'd wager they at least have some remaining ties to religious faith.

Which could still be doing jack shit to change that person.

[Cata Larga]

If they're going to a confessional, I'd wager they at least have some remaining ties to religious faith.

Which could still be doing jack shit to change that person.

But it could get some. What, weren't you the one who wanted to get at least a few criminals?

[Wisconsin9]

Where the fuck was their piety when they were raping someone or cutting a person's throat?

If they're going to a confessional, I'd wager they at least have some remaining ties to religious faith.

I'm sure you'll forgive me for being a bit cynical with regards to murderers.

[Neo Rome Republic]

Which could still be doing jack shit to change that person.

But it could get some. What, weren't you the one who wanted to get at least a few criminals?

There's no guarantee it'll work. Unlike confessions, which would provide the evidence needed to put someone away. Hence I say opening confessions is the better option.

[The Kindness Community]

regardless of sacredness, every person retains the right to remain silent and the right to religious freedom. If their religion requires that they remain silent, they have the twofold right to do so. The state cannot make anyone testify.

[Wisconsin9]

regardless of sacredness, every person retains the right to remain silent and the right to religious freedom. If their religion requires that they remain silent, they have the twofold right to do so. The state cannot make anyone testify.

The Fifth Amendment says that you don't have to testify against yourself.

[Galloism]

regardless of sacredness, every person retains the right to remain silent and the right to religious freedom. If their religion requires that they remain silent, they have the twofold right to do so. The state cannot make anyone testify.

I will point out that both rights are limited.

You do not have a right to remain silent unless it might incriminate you, and if you are given immunity there is no right to remain silent (as you can't be incriminated).

Freedom of religion is not unlimited either, although it is broad.

[Constantinopolis]

It only works for catching criminals one time, though.

Because a couple of years after you force priests to tell the police what they heard in confession, criminals will simply stop confessing their crimes to priests, and then you will have violated a religion's core beliefs for nothing.

You don't know that. Perhaps they will still be confessing to Priests. Besides, better to catch as many rapists and murders as we can, rather than let them get away, because of some speculated crime trends in the future.

So, by the same logic, let's force lawyers to testify against their own clients! Hey, it will certainly help us to catch some rapists and murderers right now - after all, some of them confess to their lawyers that they are guilty - and who cares about the future, right?

[Neo Rome Republic]

You don't know that. Perhaps they will still be confessing to Priests. Besides, better to catch as many rapists and murders as we can, rather than let them get away, because of some speculated crime trends in the future.

So, by the same logic, let's force lawyers to testify against their own clients! Hey, it will certainly help us to catch some rapists and murderers right now - after all, some of them confess to their lawyers that they are guilty - and who cares about the future, right?

Unlike a Priest, a Lawyer is legally assigned to defend their client. It's a different circumstance bud, your logic doesn't enter into it.

[Max Worshippers]

Any Government shouldn't make any law respecting any religion.

[The Kindness Community]

regardless of sacredness, every person retains the right to remain silent and the right to religious freedom. If their religion requires that they remain silent, they have the twofold right to do so. The state cannot make anyone testify.

I will point out that both rights are limited.

You do not have a right to remain silent unless it might incriminate you, and if you are given immunity there is no right to remain silent (as you can't be incriminated).

Freedom of religion is not unlimited either, although it is broad.

If the priest has knowledge of a crime, he might be incriminated through being an accomplice or having knowledge of the crime. Therefore he has the right to remain silent because it could incriminate him, right?

[Wisconsin9]

Any Government shouldn't make any law respecting any religion.

Human sacrifice, here I come!

[Kelinfort]

Only in major cases.

[Allet Klar Chefs]

Yes, obviously. If the Pope complains about this, who cares, fuck the Pope.

[Neo Rome Republic]

Yes, obviously. If the Pope complains about this, who cares, fuck the Pope.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Cata Larga]

Yes, obviously. If the Pope complains about this, who cares, fuck the Pope.

1.2 billion Roman Catholics (and tens of millions in the United States alone) care.