Should your spouse be compelled to testify against you in court?

[Camerus]

Beeb:  What do you suppose was the rationale behind spousal testimonial privilege, and why is it no longer sensible in 2014?  Because it seems to be to still be quite reasonable.

[garbon]

Beeb:  What do you suppose was the rationale behind spousal testimonial privilege, and why is it no longer sensible in 2014?  Because it seems to be to still be quite reasonable.

From wikipedia:

Both types of privilege are based on the policy of encouraging spousal harmony, and preventing spouses from having to condemn, or be condemned by, their spouses.

Doesn't seem very compelling.

[Ideologue]

The rationale behind spousal privilege was to preserve domestic harmony, in large part to not force spouses (re: wives) to perjure themselves, which they would be basically forced to do back in the days when women strongly depended upon a husband (and moreover when divorce and remarriage was hard to come by).

But either way you cut it, spousal testimony is bound to be extremely biased and unreliable.  Plus a lot of their testimony would be hearsay anyway, whether admissible under an exception or not.

I'm not really opposed to abolishing spousal privilege, but it does serve a societal function--less important than it once was--and forcing spouses to testify doesn't serve any particularly compelling purpose.

I'm with MIM.  Testimony is for savages; one day all words and deeds should be recorded, and we'll have a transparent society free of crime and corruption.  All we have to do is silence the lunatics who believe privacy is more important than child abuse, murder, bribery, and so forth.

[dps]

The rationale behind spousal privilege was to preserve domestic harmony, in large part to not force spouses (re: wives) to perjure themselves, which they would be basically forced to do back in the days when women strongly depended upon a husband (and moreover when divorce and remarriage was hard to come by).

But either way you cut it, spousal testimony is bound to be extremely biased and unreliable.  Plus a lot of their testimony would be hearsay anyway, whether admissible under an exception or not.

I'm not really opposed to abolishing spousal privilege, but it does serve a societal function--less important than it once was--and forcing spouses to testify doesn't serve any particularly compelling purpose.

I'm with MIM.  Testimony is for savages; one day all words and deeds should be recorded, and we'll have a transparent society free of crime and corruption.  All we have to do is silence the lunatics who believe privacy is more important than child abuse, murder, bribery, and so forth.

And Mihali wonders why I seem to have it out for you sometimes. 

[Ideologue]

What do you have to hide?  Crimes?  OK, the serious request: explain the value of privacy in such a way that does not take "privacy is a right" as axiomatic.

[Camerus]

Beeb:  What do you suppose was the rationale behind spousal testimonial privilege, and why is it no longer sensible in 2014?  Because it seems to be to still be quite reasonable.

From wikipedia:

Both types of privilege are based on the policy of encouraging spousal harmony, and preventing spouses from having to condemn, or be condemned by, their spouses.

Doesn't seem very compelling.

Little wonder a single young gay man would see little societal value in the traditional institution of marriage.   

I'm no legal expert, and this is more or less off the top of my head, but to me, spousal privilege exists (a) to protect the marriage, since one spouse testifying against another in court would be extremely damaging to any marriage (b) real concerns about whether such testimony would be reliable.  Obviously the value one places in marriage as an institution will also determine the extent to which you feel (a) is a valid concern.

So, to what extent do we wish to allow the state further legal rights to intrude upon one's marriage, and now force spouses to testify against one another?  Personally, I'd prefer to keep my ancient liberties in tact.

[garbon]

Beeb:  What do you suppose was the rationale behind spousal testimonial privilege, and why is it no longer sensible in 2014?  Because it seems to be to still be quite reasonable.

From wikipedia:

Both types of privilege are based on the policy of encouraging spousal harmony, and preventing spouses from having to condemn, or be condemned by, their spouses.

Doesn't seem very compelling.

Little wonder a single young gay man would see little societal value in the traditional institution of marriage.   

I'm no legal expert, and this is more or less off the top of my head, but to me, spousal privilege exists (a) to protect the marriage, since one spouse testifying against another in court would be extremely damaging to any marriage (b) real concerns about whether such testimony would be reliable.  Obviously the value one places in marriage as an institution will also determine the extent to which you feel (a) is a valid concern.

So, to what extent do we wish to allow the state further legal rights to intrude upon one's marriage, and now force spouses to testify against one another?  Personally, I'd prefer to keep my ancient liberties in tact.

And not surprising that you'd leap to shutting down my opinion because of my marital status and sexuality. 

[Camerus]

Beeb:  What do you suppose was the rationale behind spousal testimonial privilege, and why is it no longer sensible in 2014?  Because it seems to be to still be quite reasonable.

From wikipedia:

Both types of privilege are based on the policy of encouraging spousal harmony, and preventing spouses from having to condemn, or be condemned by, their spouses.

Doesn't seem very compelling.

Little wonder a single young gay man would see little societal value in the traditional institution of marriage.   

I'm no legal expert, and this is more or less off the top of my head, but to me, spousal privilege exists (a) to protect the marriage, since one spouse testifying against another in court would be extremely damaging to any marriage (b) real concerns about whether such testimony would be reliable.  Obviously the value one places in marriage as an institution will also determine the extent to which you feel (a) is a valid concern.

So, to what extent do we wish to allow the state further legal rights to intrude upon one's marriage, and now force spouses to testify against one another?  Personally, I'd prefer to keep my ancient liberties in tact.

And not surprising that you'd leap to shutting down my opinion because of my marital status and sexuality. 

Lighten up, man.  It was a joke, not a "shutting down of your opinion."   

[CountDeMoney]

And not surprising that you'd leap to shutting down my opinion because of my marital status and sexuality. 

Single people with no children are 2nd class citizens around here.  Being gay is just the icing on the cupcake, Cupcake. 

[11B4V]

And not surprising that you'd leap to shutting down my opinion because of my marital status and sexuality. 

Single people with no children are 2nd class citizens around here.  Being gay is just the icing on the cupcake, Cupcake.

They can marry now in some states.

and to the OP.....yes.

[CountDeMoney]

And not surprising that you'd leap to shutting down my opinion because of my marital status and sexuality. 

Single people with no children are 2nd class citizens around here.  Being gay is just the icing on the cupcake, Cupcake.

They can marry now in some states.

I'm talking about "here", as in Languish.   

[Neil]

Given the lower priority placed on marriage, this move makes sense in the context of modern society.

[Ed Anger]

What do you have to hide?  Crimes?  OK, the serious request: explain the value of privacy in such a way that does not take "privacy is a right" as axiomatic.

You'll see the big board.

[alfred russel]

What do you have to hide?  Crimes?  OK, the serious request: explain the value of privacy in such a way that does not take "privacy is a right" as axiomatic.

From a personal point of view, lots of things that people do may be highly embarrassing but not illegal. These things can seriously mess up someone's life. Also, privacy is important in some cases for personal safety or just personal harmony (if I one day have a massive windfall, I don't want anyone to know).

From a societal point of view, whoever is collecting all the information has an extreme amount of power. Everyone has done a collection of things that would not reflect well if they came to light (especially if out of context). It could give the holder of the information a virtual veto over any candidate running for office, which would have a negative effect on democracy. 

[Ed Anger]

Young people suck. They are so nosy.