Timlies, and a belated HAPPY NEW YEAR to all buffistas. I meant to keep up over the weekend, but I...didn't. Thanks for the congrats on the apartment. I'm still really freaked about moving. Did I mention I hate moving? Well I do. I'm hoping it will be a little different this time since it's under my own speed, but I'm having a hard time thinking about anything else right now.

Oh, and since I saw her here, although I posted this before somewhere in here, THANK YOU msbelle, for the nummy Xmas treats!!!!

Why should I be able to force my husband to keep my crimes quiet?

The idea is that marriage is sacred. You tell your spouse stuff you'd never tell another living person, and that's the way it should be.

Used to be worse. Used to be that husband and wife were one person in law, and that person was the husband.

Which meant, among other things, that a woman arrested for, say, forgery could calmly say "Okay, fine, prosecute my husband."

Why should I be able to force my husband to keep my crimes quiet?

Well, in your case, fear is a sufficient motivator. However, the broader public policy here is to keep the government from interfering in the marital relationship. Also, it is believed that spouses should be able to see comfort, support and guidance from one another. In order to facilitate these public goods, it is important from a societal standpoint that the communications be open and honest and free from forced disclosure.

it is important from a societal standpoint that the communications be open and honest and free from forced disclosure

From my dictatorial corner, I think it's more important that people are urged to be honest than communications are protected so that there's a bit less pressure for them to be so.

But I am reading this right? I can tell my husband about the blackmail and murder, but he CANNOT testify about it, even if he, say, has a conscience?

I can tell my husband about the blackmail and murder, but he CANNOT testify about it, even if he, say, has a conscience?

Yes. Unless there is some exception. For example, if he was charged with the crime, he may be able to testify at his trial that you admitted to him that you committed it. However, his testimony likely could still not be admitted at your trial to convict you.

you're welcome Frank.

lunch was enh.

my office is way hot and I have the a/c on - ridiculous.

I am going to put off drafting letters even longer by emailing. 1 work, 1 not.

So this is sorta like doctor-patient confidentiality? But there are exceptions to doctor-patient confidentiality, like if a psychiatrist believes his patient will hurt someone, he is obligated to tell authorities.

So if a man tells his wife, "tomorrow I'm going to kill a bunch of people at work," is she obligated to call the police?

I'm surprised that spousal privilege doesn't come with the same exceptions as doctor/patient privilege. (Except, apparently, in Canada.) Duty-to-warn is a kind of young theory, but as theories for the legal violation of existing privilege go, I'm a fan.

That is truly bizarro, about the "LA Angels of Anaheim". That is sort of like saying I am the San Diego Padres of Santa Barbara, right? Or the Boston Red Sox of Albany.

Or the Boston Red Sox of Albany.

The "duty to warn" exception has largely applied (if at all) to professional privileges -- attorney-client or psychiatrist-patient or priest-penitent. I haven't seen it much in the spousal situation.