Question

Privileges tend to limit evidence, even though the evidence is relevant and authentic. Assume that a member of a church congregation sought out his pastor to discuss how he could save his soul. The pastor asks for his specific concerns, at which point, the church member told the pastor that he had murdered a child whom he abducted. He then proceeds to tell the pastor of the specifics of the crime.

Under these circumstances, do you believe that the clergyman-penitent privilege serves any needs of society? Is there still a need for such a privilege? Is justice served if the privilege is permitted to exclude the evidence of the admissions that the church member made to the pastor?

Answer 1

Based on the case scenario, it has been observed that the member of the church has murdered a child whom he had kidnapped. It depicts that he has committed a crime and e clergy-penitent privilege is considered as one of the well-known privileges in the United States. It has been observed that the clergy-penitent privilege which was associated with the seal of confessional; and the word clergy depicts that its meaning varies from state to state and it might impact the privilege. there are various conditions in which privilege is held by the penitent unless the interaction was made directly to the cleric and it must not violate the canon law. No, there is no need for such a privilege because hen the matter reaches to higher authority then the huge can easily limit the rights and they can easily invoke the confidentiality privileges.