It still might be worth it. They give you 5 years in this state on average for murder. Teenager first offenders playing with a cell phone? Pretty serious crime.

http://www.rcfp.org/taping/

You might want to look at this article re taping of conversations and Linda Tripp. http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/05/06/MN15824.DTL Of course, it may be perfectly legal in your state.

Wrong. At least in many jurisdictions. Nate had it right.

Aaron B

Where do I get one?

Let me check DW’s cell phone first and her other digital toys. They might already have this feature.

I don’t know how they work. I only know that when I take them away, she shapes up real fast.

I am not an attorney but I checked into this. I was told that it is illegal for a third party to record the conversation between two other people. It is not illegal for a person to record a conversation they are having with someone else. In this example, it would be illegal for me to record the interview between the Bishop and some one else without their permission. It would not be illegal for me to record the interview between me and a Bishop without him knowning. I can act as an agent for someone else and record the conversation with the permission of one of them. Since I have legal custody over my children, that complicates it. I might or might not be able to get away with recording a conversation between my teenager and another adult without permission.I could be wrong but…

Aside for Nixonian considerations, why are y’all so nervous about recording Bishop’s interviews? What is going on in them that I am not aware of? I can understand going in there and me ‘fessing up and me not wanting it to be in the public forum. The law recognizes clerical confidentiality to mprotect the person on the weak end of the power relationship, (which we Mormons often violate when your Bishop tells the Stake President about your confession, but we don’t care about that). But where does the Bishop get this protection? Maybe it is in the new HIPPA act?

I can think of many examples when conversations are recorded without permission. 911 calls come to mind. Calls to the police. Many businesses are recording calls and a few are courteous enough to tell you. Media snoops have powerful microphones and frequently catch pieces of conversation and put it on the nightly news. A British paper recently published a picture of the bare ass of the German prime minister they took of her changing at the beach and entirely without legal permission. When some famous person walks out of the courthouse and tells the reporters, no comment, do they ask permission to record that?

I am thinking this through. The Bishop doesn’t say anything wrong in an interview; a teenager records it; the Bishop finds out; he calls the police and reports the teenager; the teenager is charged, with what? Lack of permission of recording a legally meaningless conversation? Or we assume the Bishop does say something incriminating. The Bishop insists they charge the teenager with recording it? How is that going to help him?

Back to the question of the rhetorical burden of authority: How much iniquity will the strongly authority-conditioned modern Mormon justify in a Bishop? More than I thought.

I just accidently deleted a really good response except the nd, Sorry.

I never insisted that I be with the youth all the time. I insisted that another adult woman be in the interview. Quoting myself from above:

I would not dictate who the female would be; it could be the Bishop’s wife, an YW leader, a mother of another girl, her own mother or any other adult woman.

How do you connect the dots, from me insisting on a female chaperone in a Bishop’s interview as is the custom in medical practice to me displaying the characteristics of a child abuser?

Do we Mormons assume that anyone who questions authority is guilty of sexual transgression?