cofty: Exploring the case for mandatory reporting: a summary of a roundtable hosted by the NSPCC..
Thanks - it's a couple of years old, but even from just glancing through it, you can see why...
The handling of child abuse allegations
by Landy 78 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
-
darkspilver
-
Landy
There is nothing to debate. Call the police and social services to protect the child and potentially other children.
For everyone who advocates this, they would be willing do this against the wishes of the victim?
The victim may be now an adult, be married with kids and not want to get involved. She may not have even told those close to her, yet you would still go running to the police knowing the potential upset it may cause. The correct answer in this case is no you wouldn't - it is and should be entirely up to the victim.
-
Incognito
The correct answer in this case is no you wouldn't - it is and should be entirely up to the victim.
If the 'victim' didn't want the matter pursued, what would be the purpose of that person now reporting the matter to the elders?
There should be a stated policy to the congregation that any sexual assault or abuse reported to the elders, will be reported to authorities. It is then the 'victim's' decision if he/she wishes to report the matter to elders, knowing in advance the elders will report the incident to authorities.
When there is a crime committed, it is not an option for the victim whether or not the matter is investigated and the purp is prosecuted. The only decision a victim may be able to make is whether or not the crime is reported, to anyone. Once reported to elders, then responsibility is transferred to elders if the victim is not willing to report to authorities themself.
-
Landy
There may be all sorts of reasons why the victim would report it to the elders and not the authorities - not least many years of JW indoctrination.
In that case the elders should absolutely not go directly against the wishes of the victim and report it to the police. It's not their place or their right to do that.
-
Incognito
As ministers of a church, it is their obligation for the greater good of the congregation and public at large, to report incidents of criminal behavior. The offender remains able to re-offend not only that victim, but others as well.
From your opening post, you stated: "But I'm interested to know how people on here think child abuse allegations should be handled."
It appears you are really not interested in knowing or understanding other poster's thoughts. Instead of quietly considering feedback provided, you continually disregard, debate and oppose those views. No matter what is stated, you take exception when it doesn't support your viewpoint or the interests of WT.
I think many here, similar to me, are done responding to you.
-
Landy
It appears you are really not interested in knowing or understanding other poster's thoughts. Instead of quietly considering feedback provided, you continually disregard, debate and oppose those views. No matter what is stated, you take exception when it doesn't support your viewpoint or the interests of WT.
This is an Internet forum - expect your opinion to be challenged. If you can't take that or back it up then don't fucking comment.
When you're quite finished telling me what opinion I'm allowed to have why don't you pop over to Simon's immigration thread where he's arguing black is white and tell him what opinion he's allowed to have. When you're done with that pop over to one of Cofty's excellent evolution threads (the main reason I visit here tbh) and tell him he's not allowed to hold the opinion he does.
And I haven't set foot in a KH for 20 years - I don't hate them or love them - I'm entirely ambivalent towards them.
For fuck's sake.
-
Landy
I think many here, similar to me, are done responding to you.
And as regards that it appears that most of the posters on here with a brain (which I used to think included me), including Simon, are refusing to go anywhere near this or LITS and her emotionally exploitational like farming with a shitty stick (cue another bullying thread from her).
-
OnTheWayOut
I am not going to read all the wonderful answers so that I can give a gut reaction answer first.
A huge problem in Watchtower is saying that they are in a spiritual paradise and having minors engage in the recruiting work.
Clearly, a suggestion that minors never go in the recruiting work would not fly through the governing body. But certainly, it should be well stated that there are bad elements all around, even in the congregations (weeds among the wheat). And minors should only work with their relatives, no exceptions, no dropping them off to work with others, not even with the elders (really should be especially not with elders).
Mandatory reporting should be followed. When parents won't go to police, elders should explain that mandatory reporting protects other children. Adults that don't want to face this from their past should know that elders still must report for the safety of others. If local law prohibits elders from revealing (alledged) victim names, then they report w/o the names.
If experts interview victims and perpetrators, congregations can disfellowship based on such interviews or court outcomes. They may legally be bound in many jurisdictions not to announce names. They should at least remind the congregation never to leave their child in the care of other congregatoin members without being sure about them.
I know you are trying to push these examples to the point where there is no proper way to "handle" them. There are often difficult situations, but Watchtower rules make matters worse and even start at a problem.
Victims should never have to face the perpetrator under the direction of elders. Any such action with authorities is only done with social experts.
-
Landy
Mandatory reporting should be followed. When parents won't go to police, elders should explain that mandatory reporting protects other children.
Absolutely. 100% of the time.
Adults that don't want to face this from their past should know that elders still must report for the safety of others. If local law prohibits elders from revealing (alledged) victim names, then they report w/o the names.
Struggling with this one. I fail to see what it would accomplish. I'm not even sure the police would accept the complaint (in the uk anyway) if it didn't originate from the victim and the victim wasn't willing to be involved. The elders would still be left with the situation of a) whether to believe it and b) how to protect the other children in the cong.
If experts interview victims and perpetrators, congregations can disfellowship based on such interviews or court outcomes. They may legally be bound in many jurisdictions not to announce names. They should at least remind the congregation never to leave their child in the care of other congregatoin members without being sure about them.
Again, absolutely yes.
I know you are trying to push these examples to the point where there is no proper way to "handle" them. There are often difficult situations, but Watchtower rules make matters worse and even start at a problem.
Yes, I am. As I've said before, the worst cases are often the easiest on a procedural level if not a human one. It's the case where there's difficult decisions to make that are the hardest and easiest to get wrong. And yes, they do. Especially the two witness rule they have. Although we have to keep in mind that even in law a case is much stronger if there are multiple complainants.
A good example is the recent case in Guisborough. If there was a single complaint I doubt the CPS would have touched it without compelling evidence. Once other victims came forward however, it made the case a slam dunk.
Victims should never have to face the perpetrator under the direction of elders. Any such action with authorities is only done with social experts.
Absolutely. I've heard stories of young girls being quizzed by a body of elders in a JC before, or even made to face their abuser. I sincerely hope that doesn't happen anymore.