The Wiccan Rede and Testifying in Court

[mlr52]

The Wiccan Rede and Testifying in Court



A reader writes in, "I'm concerned about an upcoming court case. I have to testify against my friend, who committed a burglary. I know he did it, but if I testify against him he's going to end up in jail because this isn't the first offense. He's emotionally fragile and I don't think he'll survive jail. So my dilemma is if I testify against him and he goes to jail, I'm going to be violating the "harm none" part of the Wiccan Rede, because it will really harm him to spend four years in jail. What should I do?"

Full article. http://paganwiccan.about.com/od/cont...Testifying.htm

While this article does not give case information, it is the concept I ask about. If your practice has the equivalent of someone that can be considered an accepted confessor, should they be exempt from testifying about any discussion the had under such a role?

[Elani Temperance]

The Wiccan Rede and Testifying in Court

A reader writes in, "I'm concerned about an upcoming court case. I have to testify against my friend, who committed a burglary. I know he did it, but if I testify against him he's going to end up in jail because this isn't the first offense. He's emotionally fragile and I don't think he'll survive jail. So my dilemma is if I testify against him and he goes to jail, I'm going to be violating the "harm none" part of the Wiccan Rede, because it will really harm him to spend four years in jail. What should I do?"

Full article. http://paganwiccan.about.com/od/cont...Testifying.htm

While this article does not give case information, it is the concept I ask about. If your practice has the equivalent of someone that can be considered an accepted confessor, should they be exempt from testifying about any discussion the had under such a role?

You question is a little confusing to me. The court case is actually about a practitioner being asked to testify against her friend while the question concerns clergy. I'll try to address both issues.

As a former follower of the Rede (I switched to Hellenic ethics a long time ago), the Rede has so many interpretations there is no yes or no answer to this. I tended to interpret it as 'try your best to harm none but accept the consequences of failing or when you make a conscious decision to harm'. This is the infinitely short version but the gist is clear. In this court case, I think telling the truth is probably the least damaging option plus, and I will address this further below, it's what the law requires.

As a Hellenic, this question is beyond easy to answer as the Delphic maxims are quite clear on it; maxim number two tells its followers to 'Obey the law'. Period. Now, one of the other maxims says to 'Help your friends'... but (and I look now beyond the maxims, to Hesiod's Works and Days for example) many ethical sources state that practicing a just and honorable life come with making a decent living for yourself in honest ways that detriment no one. In this case, the friend does not deserve to be aided and obeying the law is required.

Now, as to your question concerning clergy; if the confessor has been deemed so by law, he or she is exempt from testifying in court. They are still not allowed to lie under oath. As far as I am aware, Wiccan (or any other Pagan clergy) does not have this privilege so they would have to answer the questions asked in court truthfully and freely.

My opinion, of course.

[spoOk]

You question is a little confusing to me. The court case is actually about a practitioner being asked to testify against her friend while the question concerns clergy. I'll try to address both issues.

As a former follower of the Rede (I switched to Hellenic ethics a long time ago), the Rede has so many interpretations there is no yes or no answer to this. I tended to interpret it as 'try your best to harm none but accept the consequences of failing or when you make a conscious decision to harm'. This is the infinitely short version but the gist is clear. In this court case, I think telling the truth is probably the least damaging option plus, and I will address this further below, it's what the law requires.

As a Hellenic, this question is beyond easy to answer as the Delphic maxims are quite clear on it; maxim number two tells its followers to 'Obey the law'. Period. Now, one of the other maxims says to 'Help your friends'... but (and I look now beyond the maxims, to Hesiod's Works and Days for example) many ethical sources state that practicing a just and honorable life come with making a decent living for yourself in honest ways that detriment no one. In this case, the friend does not deserve to be aided and obeying the law is required.

Now, as to your question concerning clergy; if the confessor has been deemed so by law, he or she is exempt from testifying in court. They are still not allowed to lie under oath. As far as I am aware, Wiccan (or any other Pagan clergy) does not have this privilege so they would have to answer the questions asked in court truthfully and freely.

My opinion, of course.

dude committed burglary,if it's also not his first offense then maybe what he needs is a kick in the pants. if you can't handle the punishment ,don't commit the crime. all harm to be done has come about of his own doing.
friend who is Wiccan isnot doing the actual harm,it's already been done by his own fool self. that's how I see it.

[fjfritz]

If your practice has the equivalent of someone that can be considered an accepted confessor, should they be exempt from testifying about any discussion the had under such a role?

Many clergy, counselors, etc. in several states have privileged communication status. What this basically means is they may be exempt from certain types of testimony, even under oath. Virginia is not one of those. While these positions can maintain confidentiality, if they are subpoenaed to court they will have to disclose information. Certain types of instances are requiremented for mandatory reporting such as harm to self, harm to others, or evidence that you have been harmed (real harm, not general harm). A person who "confesses" either to a clergy or a counselor to knowing someone did the crime the article mentioned would not be obligated to be reported.

For the person, I think a question to ask oneself would be, "what harm would come from my inaction?" At least in jail, a person has access to rehabilitative services (however limited they may be).

[Elani Temperance]

dude committed burglary,if it's also not his first offense then maybe what he needs is a kick in the pants. if you can't handle the punishment ,don't commit the crime. all harm to be done has come about of his own doing.
friend who is Wiccan isnot doing the actual harm,it's already been done by his own fool self. that's how I see it.

I'm sorry, wasn't that what I basically said?
If not, could you highlight in my post what you disagree with?
If you meant to quote the OP's post then I'm sorry for this message.

[Lokabrenna]

The Wiccan Rede and Testifying in Court

A reader writes in, "I'm concerned about an upcoming court case. I have to testify against my friend, who committed a burglary. I know he did it, but if I testify against him he's going to end up in jail because this isn't the first offense. He's emotionally fragile and I don't think he'll survive jail. So my dilemma is if I testify against him and he goes to jail, I'm going to be violating the "harm none" part of the Wiccan Rede, because it will really harm him to spend four years in jail. What should I do?"

I don't know enough about the law to answer the second question, but I can take a stab at the first. I think it's important to look at the bigger picture for the first question. Perhaps it would harm this person's friend if he went to jail, but how much harm has he done by burglarizing someone? How much harm would this person do by refusing to testify, possibly letting their friend go free to commit more crimes, assuming he's at risk to re-offend? (Four years does sound like a lot for a burglary, IMO.)

That said, I wouldn't blame this person for not wanting to testify. On the other hand, I don't think it's necessarily a violation of the Rede to do so. There could be greater "harm" involved in letting someone who has committed a crime go free than not. I can't say much more without specifics.

[Darkhawk]

That said, I wouldn't blame this person for not wanting to testify. On the other hand, I don't think it's necessarily a violation of the Rede to do so. There could be greater "harm" involved in letting someone who has committed a crime go free than not. I can't say much more without specifics.

It cannot violate the Rede to testify (even if the Rede were the sort of thing that could be 'violated'), because the Rede has absolutely nothing to say about situations in which harm is inevitable. It only refers to situations in which no harm is done.

Failing to testify potentially allows a criminal to avoid justice: harm. Possible future harm if the criminal does more.

Testifying: construable as harm to the friend. Possible future harm if the friend's claimed psychological fragility interacts in the way the person anticipates with the criminal justice system.

The Rede is a conditional statement beginning "If there is no harm"; when the conditions do not include the possibility of no harm, then a person has to work through that shit without advice. (Much like "If it doesn't rain tomorrow, we can have our picnic in the park" does not say what you will do in case of thunderstorm.)

[mlr52]

You question is a little confusing to me. The court case is actually about a practitioner being asked to testify against her friend while the question concerns clergy. I'll try to address both issues.

As a former follower of the Rede (I switched to Hellenic ethics a long time ago), the Rede has so many interpretations there is no yes or no answer to this. I tended to interpret it as 'try your best to harm none but accept the consequences of failing or when you make a conscious decision to harm'. This is the infinitely short version but the gist is clear. In this court case, I think telling the truth is probably the least damaging option plus, and I will address this further below, it's what the law requires.

As a Hellenic, this question is beyond easy to answer as the Delphic maxims are quite clear on it; maxim number two tells its followers to 'Obey the law'. Period. Now, one of the other maxims says to 'Help your friends'... but (and I look now beyond the maxims, to Hesiod's Works and Days for example) many ethical sources state that practicing a just and honorable life come with making a decent living for yourself in honest ways that detriment no one. In this case, the friend does not deserve to be aided and obeying the law is required.

Now, as to your question concerning clergy; if the confessor has been deemed so by law, he or she is exempt from testifying in court. They are still not allowed to lie under oath. As far as I am aware, Wiccan (or any other Pagan clergy) does not have this privilege so they would have to answer the questions asked in court truthfully and freely.

My opinion, of course.

The actual case quoted does not give a lot of information.

Does, or should the concept, of the seal of the confessional (or its equivalent), apply to your path or that of others?

Opinions are fine.

[HeartShadow]

The actual case quoted does not give a lot of information.

Does, or should the concept, of the seal of the confessional (or its equivalent), apply to your path or that of others?

Opinions are fine.

For FlameKeeping, I cannot see where the seal of the confessional as concept would make sense, because there is no /confession/.

Honestly, if I knew a friend was committing burglaries, I think I'd be more likely to CALL the cops. Because friends don't put friends in that SITUATION.

[MadZealot]

It cannot violate the Rede to testify (even if the Rede were the sort of thing that could be 'violated'), because the Rede has absolutely nothing to say about situations in which harm is inevitable. It only refers to situations in which no harm is done.

Yep.

Failing to testify potentially allows a criminal to avoid justice: harm. Possible future harm if the criminal does more.

Also, possible harm to the criminal. If he walks into the wrong house, not knowing there's an armed occupant inside... So, telling the truth on the stand definitely would minimize harm from many directions.

Testifying: construable as harm to the friend. Possible future harm if the friend's claimed psychological fragility interacts in the way the person anticipates with the criminal justice system.

Might also be doing right by the criminal. Perhaps, when inside, he'll get the psych help he needs; or, if the psych issue really isn't there, then the criminal might learn the lessons he needs. One can hope some time in the clink would be the right kick-in-the-nuts reality check to get him off the road to more criminality. Lying on the stand might deprive the man of that needed help, whereas telling the truth could benefit him.

The Rede is a conditional statement beginning "If there is no harm"; when the conditions do not include the possibility of no harm, then a person has to work through that shit without advice.

Again, Yep.
One who believes the Rede might also subscribe to the Law of Three, which would command working through all possible repercussions of one's actions, and then taking the course which does the least harm (if harm is inevitable) while also hopefully doing some good or benefit.