Is a confession enough for a conviction?
Surprisingly, not always. Once officers secure a confession, the defendant appears in court and by that time, the defendant has a lawyer who will attempt to get the confession thrown out. The confession that is videotaped, with a proper Miranda advisement at the beginning, where the defendant admitted to the how and why of what happened, and even wrote it out in his or her own handwriting.That confession.Even if the confession is admitted in court, maybe not all of it is admitted. Even if all of it is admitted, the defendant has likely entered a plea of “not guilty” and has a convincing reason why they confessed to something they didn’t do.Don’t get me wrong, a confession is certainly helpful, but it’s not a slam dunk. The cops and the prosecuting attorney still need to do their homework with the assumption the confession won’t be enough, because sometimes it isn’t.
Just went to confession and I feel worse now?
That's guilt, and in this case, it's misplaced. It's good to know that what you did was wrong. But that's not enough. You are forgiven by God, so you need to forgive yourself. It's a terrible waste of spiritual energy to hang on to guilt after you have gone to confession. Go on with your life, with a humble heart, knowing you will sin again and that God will forgive you as many times as you ask Him sincerely.
Breaking Bad Season 5 Episode 11 (Confessions): Is Walt's confessional tape plausible? Would people believe it?
Plausible to whom? Any competent investigator could refute it easily. If Hank is running a drug empire, why does he need Walt to pay his medical bills? If he is working with Fring, why go to so much work to build a case against Fring; why not just keep things quiet and then plant some single damning clue whenever he needs to?But if that tape goes out to the public, it doesn't matter. Hank's life is ruined. The questions about why Hank took the money (or Marie, it doesn't matter) are too embarrassing for the DEA; they would have zero motivation to look for more dirt on Walt than what he'd already confessed. Walt knows on two different levels that Hank is not willing to let that happen. As Walt, he tells himself that it's because Hank wouldn't do that to his family. But as Heisenberg, he knows deep down that this has become a personal grudge with Hank. From this perspective, Walt knows it's not the pain the tape could cause Hank that matters, but the fact that it would remove Hank's ability to pursue justice against Walt.Since Heisenberg knows it's about a vendetta, he knows that the confessional tape, by cutting Hank off from telling the DEA, will make Hank escalate somehow rather than backing down. That kind of no-holds-barred one-on-one confrontation is exactly the situation that gets Heisenberg's blood pumping. Perhaps if it didn't sound so phonetically wimpy, he would have been called Pauli, because a "this town isn't big enough for both of us" showdown is what he seeks; with Tuco, with Gus, and now with Hank.
Is saying 'I'm sorry Lord' enough for a confession for committing a sin(Christian) or do I need to explain what I did wrong to God?
The apology should not be given to a capital G God. It should be given to the actual person whom you have wronged, and NO-ONE ELSE. THEY are the person you have wronged. THEY are therefore the person you should be apologising to.To foist your apology and quest for forgiveness onto an imaginary being instead of the actual person whom you have committed a wrong against is outright insulting and unworthy of a decent human being, and you should be ashamed of yourself for considering the idea that you don’t actually have to go to the person you wronged, but instead can seek the forgiveness of an entity whom you believe forgives all (oh, oh, oh, except non-belief, apparently, sorry, forgot that one).
Do you go to hell if you don't confess your sins to a priest?
If a Catholic commits a mortal sin (a sin unto death as described in the bible), he or she separates himself or herself from the grace of God. A person cannot be saved if they have separated themselves from God to this extent. If a person who is in this state does not reconcile himself with God by means of the Sacrament of Reconciliation, which includes confession of sins to a priest, he will not be saved. He will not be saved because he has willing remained in a state of mortal sin. To Don - THAT is what you came up with after 62 years of contemplation? I know students in high school who know more than you.
How much details should you give in a Catholic confession?
If you do not feel like you have given an adequate confession (i.e. you still feel bad after you have confessed) then you did not give enough details. For example. Say you stole money and you confess that, but you fail to mention that you stole money from a homeless person about to spend all he had left to buy food with.Catholic confession is more than just confession for forgiveness. Recall in the Book of James, it is said that you should “confess your sins to one another so that you may be healed.” We confess to Jesus for forgiveness, but we confess to others for healing. If all you say is that you stole money and you are given forgiveness by the priest, but you still feel guilty knowing that homeless man may have starved to death, then you did not actually confess and therefore your confession is invalid.Hence the examination of conscience. Pray about it and know what you need to confess before you go in. Do not just assume that, because the priest forgives you, you are actually forgiven. If you go in, confess that you stole money, and come out smiling because you have been forgiven, eventhough that homeless may have died because of you, then you are abusing a sacrament and are therefore practicing evil, you confession is invalid, and you are basing your salvation based on an assumption just because the priest said the words. You may be able to deceive a priest but you cannot deceive Jesus.
How do I admit embarrassing sins during confession?
Ii'm a devout Catholic, always gone to church with the family, not perfect, but not a bad person overall. But I hit -that- stage, I think... when EVERYTHINGGG seems like a turn-on and I committed some sins 'on my own' if you get my drift. But confessing those sins is difficult itself. Because my priest who I've known basically my whole life will know everything and I don't want him to look at me differently? How do I not be embarrassed at confession?
Catholics only please - is it ok to generalise sins in confession?
Hi I am scrupulous, but this is not associated with the scrupulosity. I was just wondering I keep thinking I have sexually sinned if I have fiddled with my penis or scratched it etc, I'm pretty sure I haven't masturbated. But in confession, I don't want to say 'I fiddled with my penis'. So if I say sometihng like, 'I may have done some unchaste actions', will this be valid? And another thing about the generalisation, I am always thinking I have blasphemed and said bad things about the Trinity when it's very likely I haven't. Especially when I pray or talk about religion out loud, I always worry about saying something blasphemous. During the Creed on Sunday, I was worried about saying 'I believe in the Holy Spirit etc. because of blasphemy, so I was sort of passing the hurdles, having not thought that I had blasphemed, and then when we got to 'he has spoken through the prophets', I started thinking about if I could say that differently blasphemously and then I had a thought saying devil instead of prophets. But then I thought I had said it. And when I've been doing RE Revision, I've read things out loud from the textbook, when I said 'the priest represents Jesus in the Mass', I was thinking about blasphemy and was thinking that it would be bad if I said devil instead of Jesus, and then I thought I had said it. This has happened loads of times, so if in confession, I just say, 'I think I have said bad things about the Trinity and have said things exalting the devil'. will this be valid? Because I can't remember every thing I might've said Please help, thanks
Can I be found guilty of confessing to a crime I did not commit?
Depends on the laws in a particular state and country, the circumstances of the crime, and especially the ethics of the people involved in the criminal justice system. A false confession will usually not get past honest police, prosecutors and judges. But some officials in the system are after a conviction at any cost. For example, when I was a defendant in the Superior Court of California, county of Los Angeles, I was charged with several burglaries and other crimes I did not commit (and some that I did), then offered a deal. In exchange for a guilty plea on all charges, some would be dropped and I would receive a slightly shorter sentence than if I demanded a trial and was found guilty. Since I was guilty of some crimes, and a repeat offender to boot, I didn't stand much of a chance in front of a jury. So a plea bargain wasn't much of a deal. One way or another -- whether I plead guilty or a jury found me guilty -- I was going to the joint for a long time. But defendants allege that's what prosecutors count on. That is, when a guy is going to prison anyway, a prosecutor will load a defendant up with charges related to crimes he did not commit, then offer (i.e., coerce) a plea bargain in exchange for dropping some of the charges. Which may or may not be linked with the defendant's criminal activity. In this way, the prosecutor wins points for convictions which count towards career advancement. The police get to clear paperwork and pretend to solve crimes. But the benefit to the defendant is sometimes dubious when he receives only a few years off a long sentence. (My 38-year sentence was reduced to 34 years, and I served 26 years.) In any case, the biggest losers in this deal with the devil are members of society who continue to be victimized by criminals who committed crimes for which someone else is doing the time. So yes, people are found guilty all the time of crimes they did not commit. But if the question concerns the possibility of being found guilty for the act of falsely confessing to a crime, then yes, that offense could be prosecuted under laws related to giving false statements to a police officer.