custom ad
OpinionMarch 9, 2001

When Missouri passed a tough anti-child abuse law removing the privilege of confidentiality except in client-attorney communications, the intention was to give prosecutors an upper hand. At the same time, the law set up a serious conflict with the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion...

When Missouri passed a tough anti-child abuse law removing the privilege of confidentiality except in client-attorney communications, the intention was to give prosecutors an upper hand. At the same time, the law set up a serious conflict with the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion.

This conflict is the basis of a case currently before the Missouri Supreme Court. A Texas County prosecutor wants the court to force two Jehovah's Witness elders to testify against a man who allegedly confessed sexually abusing two young girls.

Receive Daily Headlines FREESign up today!

The prosecutor wouldn't have known about the church confession if the accused man's wife hadn't said something. But she is refusing to testify against her husband, and the prosecutor can't force her to do so, despite the state law lifting the shield of confidentiality.

While no one wants to give child abusers any advantage, the issue of religious freedom cannot be ignored. In this conundrum, the Supreme Court judges must exercise the utmost care.

Story Tags
Advertisement

Connect with the Southeast Missourian Newsroom:

For corrections to this story or other insights for the editor, click here. To submit a letter to the editor, click here. To learn about the Southeast Missourian’s AI Policy, click here.

Advertisement
Receive Daily Headlines FREESign up today!