Tis_Bearself
Patron
On the lawyer privilege point:
Assuming you are in a country that recognizes a significant lawyer-client privilege, it is highly unlikely that a legislature (presumably containing a number of lawyers among the elected persons and their staffs) would pass a law eroding such privilege, unless it was somehow in favor of the lawyers that this be done.
Even if they did so for political reasons, it is highly unlikely that any judicial review body such as the courts (presumably with everyone sitting on the court and their staff all having a legal background) would uphold such an erosion, again unless it was to the advantage of lawyers and to the profession generally that this be done.
There is really no good reason to pass laws that would discourage people from speaking candidly to their lawyers in confidence, or perhaps even from retaining lawyers.
There is also very little good reason, other than political reasons, to pass laws removing the privilege from priests. At least if we were to remove the privilege from lawyers, we have some good idea of what information we might get, because criminals pretty much all talk to their lawyers and give them information. In the case of the priests, we do not have any idea how many sexual abusers, or criminals in general, confess these crimes in confession. Given that many good Catholics who likely don’t commit crimes also don’t bother to go to confession, it’s doubly unlikely that those committing serious sins will feel moved to go to confession. My guess is that it’s a miniscule number. So we are removing a privilege with no good basis for removing it.
Assuming you are in a country that recognizes a significant lawyer-client privilege, it is highly unlikely that a legislature (presumably containing a number of lawyers among the elected persons and their staffs) would pass a law eroding such privilege, unless it was somehow in favor of the lawyers that this be done.
Even if they did so for political reasons, it is highly unlikely that any judicial review body such as the courts (presumably with everyone sitting on the court and their staff all having a legal background) would uphold such an erosion, again unless it was to the advantage of lawyers and to the profession generally that this be done.
There is really no good reason to pass laws that would discourage people from speaking candidly to their lawyers in confidence, or perhaps even from retaining lawyers.
There is also very little good reason, other than political reasons, to pass laws removing the privilege from priests. At least if we were to remove the privilege from lawyers, we have some good idea of what information we might get, because criminals pretty much all talk to their lawyers and give them information. In the case of the priests, we do not have any idea how many sexual abusers, or criminals in general, confess these crimes in confession. Given that many good Catholics who likely don’t commit crimes also don’t bother to go to confession, it’s doubly unlikely that those committing serious sins will feel moved to go to confession. My guess is that it’s a miniscule number. So we are removing a privilege with no good basis for removing it.