Today in class we discussed the distinction made about certain kinds of relationships protected under the law and those that are not. For instance, information between spouses, even information that is criminal, is protected by law. Other relationships include professional ones-- lawyer/client privilege, doctor/patient confidentiality privilege-- but I intend to focus on more personal relationships (as this was the qualification that framed our discussion today in class). If a personal relationship between spouses is legally privileged, why not the relationship between parents and children? Or between brother and sister? Though not in all cases, these personal relationships can be as close and rewarding as a spousal relationship. The only significant difference is that, presumably, the relationship between spouses involves a sexual relationship and the relationship between family members does not. If that is the only discernible difference, then do not all adults in consenting, long-term sexual relationship constitute protection under this principle? The protection of the law, however, does not apply to same-sex couples or couples who choose to live together without obtaining a marriage license for whatever reason.
So what makes loyalty between spouses fundamentally different before the law than other personal relationships? It seems that I can usually identify some kind of guiding philosophy when we have discussed US laws before, but in this case I cannot see a philosophical distinction.
A possible reason for spousal privilege being enforced by the law is that one may choose who he or she marries. Unlike that of family relationships in which we have no say in who we are bound. Another reason I believe that marriages have protected confidentiality is that one does not always form close loyalties to his or her family but it is implied by signing a contract with another to commit forever that you are loyal to that person, loyal to the point of disobeying the law. Contract law is the only difference that I can determine between spousal relationships and other personal relationships.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Haley. I think the reason that the spousal privileges, specifically not having to testify against your spouse, it because it a contract acknowledged by the government. If they acknowledge the contract to be according to the law, they cannot force one to break that contract. When it comes to friends there is no provable contract. Loyalty between friends is harder to show since there is an institution like marriage for friendships. With family, I do not really understand why that is not protected. I feel as though in that case there should be an understood contract in the eyes of the court. It may have to do with cases like spousal abuse, where if family members were allowed to keep silent there would be too many injustices that occur in society.
ReplyDeleteI think both of your points are good ones! I still think along the same lines as you, Zain, when thinking about family relationships. While I agree that there are instances in which some family relationships are less involved that spousal ones, that is not necessarily true of all persons. I do not feel as though I can be compelled to testify against my mothers or sister any more than I could my spouse. The instance of abuse can be true in a spousal relationship as well, and there are (I believe) legal exceptions made in those cases. I am glad that you agree that there seems to be a logical hole in the legal reasoning here!
Delete