by Marvin Shilmer 46 Replies latest jw friends
Watchtower’s Judicial System
Today I uploaded a new article to my blog addressing a central aspect of judicial process and how its lack in Watchtower’s system undermines justice and confidence, not to mention undermining the honesty of Watchtower’s presentation of its system.
The article is titled Watchtower’s Judicial System and is available at: http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com/2011/04/watchtowers-judicial-system.html
Marvin Shilmer
Good article Marvin!
Marvin,
Very well done. When one looks at a JW judicial hearing, it appears closer to that of a kangaroo court hearing than that of a U.S. (worldly, despised by Watchtower) court process.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A kangaroo court or kangaroo trial is a colloquial term for a sham legal proceeding or court. The outcome of a trial by kangaroo court is essentially determined in advance, usually for the purpose of ensuring conviction, either by going through the motions of manipulated procedure or by allowing no defense at all.
A kangaroo court's proceedings deny due process rights in the name of expediency. Such rights include the right to summon witnesses, the right of cross-examination, the right not to incriminate oneself, the right not to be tried on secret evidence, the right to control one's own defense, the right to exclude evidence that is improperly obtained, irrelevant or inherently inadmissible, e.g., hearsay, the right to exclude judges or jurors on the grounds of partiality or conflict of interest, and the right of appeal.
Len
Thank you from the bottom of my heart for not copying and pasting your blog. I've noted that these long articles can always be summed in a few sentences and a link provided. I can't read long pasted posts. I don't have time to read your blog now. Since I am a lawyer, I will be certain to return and study it. It strikes me that the any system in place by the WT must be a kangaroo process. No one has neutrality the way common law judges do. Also, some training is needed.
People get annoyed me b/c of my focus on fair process. When I started school, I found procedure a total bore. When would the real law ever start? Slowly, I realized the procedure is the real law. Without due process, nothing that follows is legitimate. I'd love to hear what wetted your interest in this topic.
I do not mean at all to detract from Marvin Shilmer's article, which has merit on its own. It is indeed awful that the judicial procedure is as it is in the Watchtower. But in my mind, reforming the system to make it more humane would not go to the root of the problem. Being the worldly I am, my stupid question has to be why a church should have a judicial system at all.
Why should an elder be concerned with my smoking? Maybe he can give me advice and perhaps even warn me that I won't make it to Paradise Earth if I don't quit smoking, but the whole idea of him having effective power over me "in this system of things", and him being able to actually punish me for something that should be a matter between my God and I, is very warped, in my humble opinion.
I say this as a former Catholic. The Inquisition was such a big crime. This is another, only perhaps at a smaller scale.
I am with dgp.
I haven't had a chance to read Marvin's article yet but a point I found very interesting in the elder's "Flock" book is that the brother or sister being judged isn't called brother or sister, but rather "the wrongdoer" or "the accused." Guilt is assumed from the get-go.
Very good point Mad Sweeney.
so it is obvious sham. One can just casually read the rules and see that facially, the actual text, precludes any Western notion of law and process. And Jesus spoke so clearly about not judging another person but to focus on your own wrong. The very notable Jesus said your neighbor's wrongs are God's business not the business of another flawed human.
I was asked to be a canonical lawyer in the Anglican church but I was too ill to do it. As long as we live in this life, I believe a religion has the right to define itself. Otherwise, any one can stand up and preach a very radically different message with legitimacy. Paul came under the jurisdiction of Peter and James and the Jerusalem faction. It is interesting b/c Paul is very certain Christianity includes Gentiles with no Jewish law imposed. Yet he submitted to Jerusalem but it strikes me that Jerusalem did not win. Paul compromised but just a bit.
I discussed Jesus' lack of clarity in the gospels last week at a church function. The apostles were simple fishermen who remained simple and clueless until the Resurrection experiences. If the main function of the gospels was to set doctrine or legal rules, people were very adept at writing such formulas. I assume the vagueness is purposeful. Perhaps there was an established oral tradition that we have lost. Autonomy is clear but it wasn't absolute. Core beliefs had to be shared so that one city's Christians could recognize another city's Christians. I am so curious as to how apostates were treated.
Gnostics were not included. Their canon was rejected. Orthodoxy must exclude others to be orthodox. It never ceases to amaze me that the Witness abrogate power. Magna Carta rights were established a very long time ago. It reminds me of the Middle Ages before evidence rules and trial by jury developed. Evidence was determined by miraculous feats. Someone would be thrown all tied up into water. Sinking was a sign of God's good will. Dying they proved their innocence. No one thought these rules absurd and crazy at the time.
A larger issue would be why anyone raised in Western culture would agree to be bound by these rules. A mere accusation unfounded by evidence can trigger the assumption of guilt. Civil law countries don't use juries as much. Judges are rigorously trained to be fact finders. They must be able to ferret out truth from falsehood better than common law juries. Common law countries purposefully decided that jury trials would determine the facts unless the accused waived the right. It is so contrary to all our notions of fair play yet millions upon millions submit like sheep.
Band on the run writes:
“A larger issue would be why anyone raised in Western culture would agree to be bound by these rules.”
For the most part converts are not educated about details of Watchtower’s judicial process until after baptism when/if they are ever called before a Watchtower tribunal. In particular they are not informed that should they be brought before a Watchtower judicial hearing they will be denied from having a third-party observe the hearing even if they request it.
New converts are taught to trust Watchtower and, based on that trust, to respond to what comes from Watchtower as they would to the voice of God.[1]
Marvin Shilmer
_______________
References:
1. “It is vital that we appreciate this fact and respond to the directions of the “slave” as we would to the voice of God, because it is His provision.”—(The Watchtower, June 15, 1957 p. 370)
As usual, spot on Marvin.
