This is the text of a debate I had almost four years ago with a JW by the name of "Friend." After this debate he and I actually became friends, but during this debate, things were quite ferocious!
If nothing else, this rather lengthy essay shows just how unfair, biased and backward the JW judicial system actually is.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Friend and others interested in fairness and justice in the JW judicial system,
As promised, here is my response to you from the "Condemned by Their Own Words" thread. It is long, but this is out of necessity because the responsibility of judging others is a serious matter. I will try to address every issue and exception brought up in our postings in that thread. And then some!
You have previously agreed with some of what I have to say. I'm not being redundant, because this essay was also written for the benefit of people other than yourself.
With regards to your request (and my initial refusal) to define the word "secret" when it applies to JW judicial hearings, I will do better than giving my own definition. I will give examples straight from the WTS literature itself. After having done that, perhaps you might consider readjusting your accusation that I am "dishonest" and that I "need to grow up." Perhaps not.
As I previously stated, I originally did not want to define the word "secret" for you, since I assumed that 1) either we would end up engaging in a word-definition war and/or 2) most, if not all people reading this board know exactly what is and isn't secret in a judicial hearing. You disagreed and asserted that there might be many people reading this board who don't know what is and isn't secret in a judicial hearing. You said, "Bottom line is, there is much confusion on this board as to what constitutes "secrecy" on the subject at hand." I don't know where you got your evidence for this, since you didn't produce any, but nonetheless, I will discuss exactly what is "secret" in the JW judicial process anyway.
I believe you are aware that for me personally, the most important change I would like to see in the society is for it to eliminate its disfellowshiping policies in all but the most severe situations. I would have no big problem if the society stuck strictly "by the book" and I mean the Bible, (NOT its own writings) and DFd only for those sins mentioned in 1 Cor. 5:11. I also would like to see it end its extremely harsh and pervasive shunning policies. If this is ever accomplished, I will vanish as a JW critic. That's a promise.
Since the most important item on my personal agenda is the elimination of disfellowshiping as is now practiced in JWdom, and since the WTS judicial process is the determining element in whether someone ends up being DFd or not, I've taken the time and effort to examine that process as closely as I could. Frankly, I'm not happy with what I've found. In fact, I'm so disappointed with the Flock book's guidelines on judicial procedures that I'm going focus on it in an entirely separate essay, including discussing the Biblical aspects of judicial hearings, versus what is policy and practice by the WTS and local judicial committees..
The accusation you made against me about which caused me to devote a large amount of time and thought was this one (caps mine):
"Sorry, Doug, but you are the one here mudding the water on the subject of judicial practice among JWs. Your LARGEST and MOST ERRONEOUS obfuscating was in your comparison of secular courts with the JW judicial process, they are relevantly dissimilar in some rather critical areas." (sic)
You have demanded clarifications of statements from me and others, so quid quo pro.
You did not state HOW they were relevantly dissimilar or WHY they MUST be relevantly dissimilar other than to say this:
"I'll also point out a big difference between courts of the land and JW judicial process. The former requires public access because it directly affects the fabric of society the latter does not (sic). Comparatively, the two are dissimilar. Comparatively the issues should be this: Will either community support each corresponding mechanism as it exists? If the answer is yes then it is acceptable for the intended purposes. If the answer is no things must be changed."
I would hope that the "intended purposes" you mention are to seek and find justice, since that is the "intended purpose" of this essay.
But other than that, your statements above are confusing. I have never stated that the general public should be privy to JW judicial hearings. Why should they? They are religious matters. Are you saying by this that rank-and-file JWs should not be allowed to be privy to JW judicial hearings because the fabric of THEIR society is NOT affected by what goes on in those hearings? I certainly hope not!
When you say "support" each corresponding mechanism as it exists, what do you mean? Agreeing with and endorsing how it is done? Or just letting it be as it is? I'm telling you right now that I don't think that any "worldly" lawyer in the US with any sense of fairness would "support" or "endorse" the JW judicial hearings as being anywhere NEAR as fair overall as "wordly" courts in the US.
I agree that the US and JW courts are dissimilar in some "rather critical areas", and I will give a number of examples showing where. Regarding my "obfuscation error" of making any kind of comparison at all, may I remind you that my original post contained these words from that January 22,1981 Awake!: "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him." Did justice in Bible times employ these guidelines? Indeed it did." (It then gave an example from Deut. 16:18-20)
So it was NOT ME, but the AWAKE! ITSELF that FIRST compared our United State's constitutional RIGHT to have public and speedy trials and be able to confront witnesses against the defendant which included a correlation to the Bible! If the Awake! can make comparisons, then others should also be allowed to do the same. To suggest otherwise is special pleading and nothing more.
The WTS makes claims that its judicial proceedings and determinations are based on the Bible itself and since Awake! compared Biblical judicial treatment with a relevant part of the United State Constitution, it then logically follows that I should be able to do the same thing. I will use the American judicial system in my comparisons, as that is the only secular judicial system I'm familiar with.
Both the US and the WTS judicial systems are primarily used to ENSURE JUSTICE. If you don't agree with that, then you might as well not read further, since that is my main emphasis in this essay. Also, this is the most important "similar relevance" between the US system and the JW system, and it deserves special and careful attention.
.
In the case of the US system, any number of punishments for guilty parties, including execution can be adjudged. In the case of the WTS system, and in the eyes of Jehovah's Witnesses they have a much more serious responsibility, for their adverse judgments are believed to result in ETERNAL DEATH in the worst case, and/or extreme emotional pain and total severance from family and friends in the best case.
Considering the stakes, would it not logically follow that the WTS justice system should be held to a much higher standard for ensuring fairness and justice than mere worldly courts? Also considering the stakes, shouldn't it logically follow that the WTS justice system should be set-up and administered so that it gives the accused EVEN MORE benefit of the doubt than any worldly system? How can any reasonable person answer other than "yes" to this question?
Jehovah's Witnesses are taught that in the final analysis, Jehovah is the ultimate judge of each person's fate. However, that should not be used as an excuse to justify that if serious flaws exist in the JW judicial system, it's not fundamentally important, since God will eventually "fix" those wrongs sometime in the future anyway. This is especially true since the society claims to be divinely guided by Jehovah himself. It follows that AT LEAST in deciding what amounts to the most serious offense that any JW could commit, ergo, one meriting disfellowshiping, and one that hinges on his eternal life, Jehovah would have seen to it that enough checks and balances are in place that injustices would be nonexistent or so remote that they could be considered nonexistent. The evidence is otherwise as we shall see.
The society itself has stated that approximately 1% of its membership is DFd each year:
*** w68 8/1 476 Why Christians Seek to Avoid Loose Conduct ***
Thus it has been reported that close to 1 percent of the Witnesses in the United States were disfellowshiped in the past year, the majority for sexual immorality.
This amounts to about 45,000-50,000 persons annually that are judged and convicted by JW judicial courts. I would think it would be fair and even conservative to estimate that about the same number are disassociated. Since DFd and DAd people are viewed and treated exactly the same (shunning and eternal death if unrepentent), that makes 90,000-100,000 people who are judged guilty by judicial committees or judged guilty by the rank and file (for being "disassociated") each and every year. In a period of the next ten years we are talking about one million people ending up with potential death sentences. This matter is serious.
CAVEATS
I will also be straightforward and tell you that I have never been personally privy to any congregational judicial hearing, and I thus have no firsthand experience in their proceedings. Since you are an elder, you undoubtedly have. So, mathematically speaking, your PERSONAL experience of what goes on is infinitely greater than mine. (Any percent increase over zero is infinite!) Even so, your own experience only amounts to a minute fraction of the overall picture.
I can only present anecdotes as some of my evidence for the very obvious reason that what really goes on in judicial hearings is not made available to either the general JW brotherhood or the "world." Actually, Friend, you used an anecdotal argument yourself and you treated it as FACT, without any substantiation. You said:
"MOST people who've encountered the JW judiciary process do not consider it to be oppressive. In FACT, MOST, even among those disfellowshipped, acknowledge that fairness was evidenced."
Have you interviewed ALL people who've gone through that process to make that statement of FACT? Have you any written and provable statistics which will allow you to prove that statement as FACT? I suspect you were merely stating your own personal experience with people who've been through the process.
With regards to my own anecdotal evidence, you, of course, may view it in any way you wish.
My main evidence for how JW judicial committees are supposed to be conducted is the Flock book. I have no other additional evidence such as more recent clarifications to elders, new directives, new policies, and so forth. So if I present something that has been changed from what is presented in the Flock book, don't criticize me for my ignorance of these changes, since I simply have no way of knowing about them, being the mean old "apostate" that I am.
I got my Flock book information online, having never been an elder and having left the JW faith long before the Flock book was written. Since I've noticed it contains some typos, I must assume it was retyped or scanned with other-than-ideal software. I don't know if it is the latest "edition" or not. Therefore, I can't say for a certainty that the information in it that I will present is absolutely correct or not. I suggest you check your own copy against what I present if you believe something is false, misleading or inaccurate.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE JW JUDICIAL ARRANGEMENT
M. James Penton, in his book, "Apocalypse Delayed", on page 89 states the following:
"More significant was the fact that such committees were now to act as church courts or "judicial committees." During Russell's day and even during much of Rutherford's presidency, Bible Students or Witnesses were tried before the whole "church" or local congregation in an attempt to follow Jesus's command at Matthew 18:17. Under the new arrangement that custom was abolished. The Watchtower of 15 May 1944 stated: "The offended one must tell the "church." According to theocratic order this would not mean a congregational meeting with all present, but telling it to those charged with the care of the congregation and representing it in special service capacities. What this meant was that the Watch Tower Society had really established a clergy class, in spite of denials to the contrary, and church courts which were inquisitions in the dictionary and legal sense of the term. They were to fulfil "the role of judge, jury and prosecutors of the accused."
"At first congregational judicial committees acted largely against persons who disgreed openly with the society's teachings and policies. Such were those who "created divisions" or "promoted sects" as described by Romans 16:17,18 and Titus 30:10,11 (sic). Although from 1952 forward for many years, this was not to be the case. What the society became primarily concerned with from that date until the late 1970's was "keeping the organization clean." Consequently, through congregational committees, it began to disfellowship fornicators, adulterers, drunkards, and persons guilty of other immoral practices. As time went by, it broadened the number of offences (sic) for which one could be cast out of the Witness community. For example, associating with a disfellowshiped person was, for a dedicated Jehovah's Witnesses, declared a ground for disfellowshipment as was the taking of a blood transfusion after 1961." (See 1955 WT, page 607, 1961 WT, pages 63,64)
I'll leave it up to the reader and the evidence to decide whether some of these incriminating statements are true or not.
SETTING UP THE GROUNDWORK FOR JUSTICE
It is reasonable to assume that for any type of judicial proceeding to be as just as possible, it:
1) Must have just and impartial moderator(s)
2) Must be SET UP so it can ONLY operate in a just and impartial way. THIS POINT IS KEY!
3) Must have just and impartial judges/juries
4) Must give every possible benefit of the doubt to the accused
JW JUDICIAL PROCEDURES AND THE "FLOCK" BOOK COMMENTS
Later in this essay (and in my next essay in particular) I will go into more detail on this, but for now let me state I was very disappointed that the Flock book gives far too much latitude to the elders and sets down far too few rules for how they can conduct their judicial hearings. They don't outline the absolute rights of the defendant other than in broad principle. I thought I would never complain that the WTS had TOO FEW RULES, but in this case I am doing just that!
This lack of specific rules is a double-edged sword. Elders guided only by good conscience and a good sense of what is right and wrong have more latitude to show mercy with fewer rules in place. But elders subject to fewer rules and guided by motives which are other than good can easily set up a "kangaroo court", railroad an innocent defendant, ruin his/her life and in many cases, get away with it. There simply are not enough checks and balances in the JW judicial system to prevent this, and the defendant's RIGHTS are severely limited when compared with the US system.
Here is a good example of what I mean from Penton's "Apocalypse Delayed", page 248:
"Although judicial committees are supposed to operate on the basis of minimal established procedures, these are frequently ignored by committee members, circuit overseers, and the society itself. In addition, when the society decides that someone is troublesome, it will actually conspire to have such a person cast out in flagrant violation of its own rules. When Walter Salter, former Canadian branch overseer, was disfellowshipped in 1937, his witnesses were shouted down and denied the right to speak at a congregational trial, even according to The Watchtower's own account. Olin Moyle's disfellowshipment occurred as the result of a vendetta against him on the part of Judge Rutherford and his official lieutenants. More recently, Raymond Franz was excommunicated for the violation of one of the society's rules which was applied to him in a retroactive or ex post facto manner.
"Numerous others have experienced even more severe treatment. An Ottawa, Ontario woman Mrs Elana Bartlett, was verbally harrassed so severely by a judicial committee several years ago that she had to be taken by ambulance to a local hospital and given oxygen. In a more recent situation, John Higgins, a Port Moody, Bntish Columbia, Witness who had not been attending meetings at the local kingdom hall, was spied on by elders who, in an attempt to determine whether he was attending the services of another religion, hid in bushes on a playground near his home with a camera and peered at him through binoculars. When he discovered what was going on, he slipped up behind them, took a picture of them, and asked what they were doing. Shortly thereafter they ordered him to appear before a judicial committee which excommunicated him, even though it had no witnesses or positive evidence against him.
In his footnote to this last incident, Penton states:
"Most of the information presented here is taken from a first-hand account by Catherine Clark of the Vancouver Sun in the Sun of 17 September 1982, on pages A1 and A2, although some few details are based on Higgin's personal account. Clark accompanied Higgins to his "trial" before the judicial committee as one of his two witnesses. The members of the judicial committee did not want to allow Higgins to have any witnesses but grudgingly allowed them to remain present when Higgins produced a Sun article which quoted Eugene Rosam of the Canadian branch office of the Watch Tower Society as having stated that persons who were brought before judicial committees had a right to have their own witnesses present. Of course, Clark did not reveal the fact that she was a correspondent for the Vancouver Sun.
Penton continues on page 249:
"These cases and many others like them are too well documented to be denied. But the Witness community is told always that it must respect what judicial committees do. Even though hearings before them take place in secret and the average Witness knows little or nothing of what has transpired, he is told that he must accept the rulings of the committee without question."
This kind of problem is precisely why the US laws are so detailed and so strict regarding judicial procedures and why they try to hard to ensure the rights of the accused.
US JUDICIAL SYSTEM COMPARED WITH WTS JUDICIAL SYSTEM
Knowing All the Rules for a Judicial Procedure
In the US system, all court proceedings, evidentiary information, and conduct of judges, prosecutors, defendants, jury and witnesses are dictated by law. Any person in this country can get detailed information on any and all rules concerning court proceedings. In the WTS system, some or most of what is and isn't allowed in WTS courts is found only in the Flock book, and this book is not available to anyone but elders.
How much does the average JW know about this book and what's in it? In a WT CD-ROM search, this is all I could find:
"Among such publications is the book Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock, which contains Scriptural guidelines and is provided for appointed congregation overseers, or elders." - July 15, 1994 Watchtower in a footnote.
So, UNLESS EVERYTHING in the Flock book regarding judicial procedures, judicial decisions and a person's rights in those judicial procedures is explained elsewhere in JW publications, and it is easy for the average JW to find, there is immediately a serious problem in the JW judicial process. If this problem is true, the defendant becomes dependent upon HIS OWN JUDGES to explain to him exactly what his rights are and exactly how the process works, and he has no way to verify in writing that his rights and the process are explained fully, accurately and honestly.
So if the elder judges are dishonest or have an agenda other than seeking pure justice, the defendant is already screwed.
Furthermore, if this is true then it would be my first example of "secret" in a JW judicial hearing: the written rules of what can and cannot be done in a JW judicial hearing are THEMSELVES A SECRET to all defendants who are not or never were elders!
Such is not the case with the US system. All the rules of the proceedings are freely available.
WHO DOES THE JUDGING?
In the US criminal justice system, the defendant has the absolute RIGHT to be judged by a jury of 12 of his peers. These peers can include women. In the WTS system, (unless he is an elder) the defendant is judged by a jury of not of his peers, but by only 3 (or more rarely, 4 or 5) of his male rulers (or to avoid an argument, his "shepherds." Ironically, the title of Unit 5(a) in the Flock book is "Overseers 'RULING for Justice Itself'"). In contrast with the US system, in the JW system, only men judge men, and only men judge women.
In all US criminal trials, the defendant has the right to be judged by total strangers to ensure impartiality. In the WTS system, this the exception, not the rule as evidenced in the Flock book, Unit 5(b), page 109:
"If a judicial committee is needed, elders who are present at the Kingdom Hall should determine which elders will serve on the committee and which one will be the chairman."
This is one of several distinctions that I will note has and could end up being a double-edged sword. A JW could be judged by elders whom he's known for many years, even decades. As the result of such association, such elders (if compassionate) would then be in a position to weigh in their judgement a favorable (or more favorable) verdict based upon an intimate knowledge of the true character and righteous history of the individual. On the otherhand, an elder or elders who also knows the defendant quite well, and don't like his/her for reasons relevant or irrelevant to the case, could render an adverse judgement that might not have otherwise been rendered.
By comparison, the US system radically diminishes the likelihood of this kind of thing happening.
JUDGE'S QUALIFICATIONS
In the US system justice, judges (who in a jury trial only serve as moderators) are degreed and experienced attorneys with (generally speaking) a broad background and knowledge of the letter and spirit of the law. In the JW system, one's eternal fate could and has been decided in less than 30 minutes by a panel of janitors and window washers without even so much as a high school education. In all fairness, there are also many incompetent and biased secular judges and even some juries. However, a defendant is allowed to be represented by counsel in a US court, and there are legal mechanisms available to have an incompetent or prejudiced judge or juror replaced, even during the trial. In the JW system, a judge can be replaced before trial and after the trial on an appeal, but the defendant has no RIGHT to effect a change DURING the trial, no matter how prejudicial or incompetent the judge(s) may be. This means the defendant has to end up being adjudged GUILTY before he can have a retrial with a more fair panel of judges. Of course, this sometimes happens in the US courts, but not always, as it does in JW courts.
And even in cases where a prejudiced or incompetent judge is NOT removed during a US criminal trial, by having a trial by a jury of one's peers as a RIGHT, the defendant has the chance to be given a fair judgement by someone other than that incompetent judge, namely, the jury itself.
CONFRONTING ACCUSERS
I stated:
"In a JW judicial hearing, does the accused have the RIGHT to be confronted with all the witnesses against him/her? No."
You replied:
"I'm sorry, you'll have to demonstrate this. The entire comment gives impressions that JWs somehow prohibit and discourage confronting witnesses with those accused. I know of no such leanings except possibly in cases of child abuse."
Then a few sentences later, you accused me of this:
"Do you want to be taken seriously? Insinuating things that are not there is likewise not right reason either." (sic)
Contrary to your accusation just above, I neither mentioned nor implied ANYTHING about a "prohibition" on being confronted with witnesses. I merely stated that being able to confront prosecution witnesses was not a JW RIGHT. Read my sentence above again. Show me that I left any other "impression" other than that. You accused me of doing something I didn't do, and then did the same thing yourself! This is especially funny in light of these words you said to me in that thread: "Your actions were and are hypocritical." Pot. Kettle. Black.
Now, let's see what the Flock book says about my assertion that the accused does NOT have the RIGHT to be confronted with all the witnesses against him/her. In Unit 5(c), page 119 (all caps are mine) it says the following:
"If the accused does not admit guilt, he SHOULD be informed as to the source of the charge(s) made against him. Accusers SHOULD be willing to assume their responsibility, as was required by Israel."
The word "should" tells me that it is not an immutable RIGHT for a JW defendant to be able to face and confront all his accusers. Therefore, I stand by original assertion.
In US law, it is a RIGHT to not only confront accusers but to be able to cross-examine them. No RIGHT to do this is established in the Flock book. In fact, the Flock book says not ONE WORD about ANY absolute RIGHTS of the accused.
This means that Elders could present prosecution witnesses, and dismiss them immediately after their testimony without being in violation of the Flock book procedures. Has it ever happened? I don't know, but I do know the Flock book does not PREVENT it from happening by stating any clear-cut procedures in that matter.
ESTABLISHING GUILT OR INNOCENCE
US law clearly states that all defendants are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. I could find no statements in the Flock book that stated the same about a JW "defendant". Although it does make some general statements like these:
"In giving counsel or rendering decisions, avoid expressing opinions; be sure to judge in righteousness." - Unit 5(b) , page 112.
"Elders on a judicial committee must weigh carefully both the interests of the individual and those of the congregation as a whole." - Unit 5(b), page 116
"Elders should be quick to listen but slow to indicate a preference or a leaning one way or the other. Wait until you've heard all the facts before reaching conclusions and making decisions." - Unit 5(c), page 120
Other than this there is NOTHING in the Flock book that instructs the elders that they MUST presume the defendant is innocent until proven otherwise. This is a serious flaw in the JW system.
Does that mean that the elders on the committee ALWAYS presume the defendant is guilty from the very start? Of course not. But it DOES mean that the elders on the committee are not REQUIRED to presume innocence as judges and juries are in US law. This important distinction has likely caused many injustices in the JW system. I will cite a good example of this later on in this essay.
Many people think that it is a secular jury's job to establish guilt or innocence. This is absolutely NOT true! It is ONLY the jury's job to determine guilt BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT or not. If the jury cannot determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, it does not mean the defendant is innocent or is judged as innocent. It means merely that the prosecution could not produce sufficient evidence to establish guilt using the "reasonable doubt" rule. So, in the US criminal system, a favorable ruling for the defendant is actually a ruling of, "Not PROVEN Guilty."
I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who said, "I would rather see one hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man be punished." The US judicial system places virtually ALL of the burden of proof on the prosecution, and NONE on the defendant, and the defendant has the RIGHT not to testify nor incriminate himself in any way. Additionally, he exercises this right with impunity.
Thus, when it did err, the US judicial system was purposefully designed to err on the side of the defendant. This is precisely what it does in in the vast majority of cases.
In actual practice, what do you think would happen in a JW judicial hearing if the defendant said, "I have nothing to say, and you can't use the fact that I have nothing to say against me. I don't have to prove my innocence. You have to prove my guilt."
I'll bet a cup of coffee that in ACTUAL PRACTICE a statement like that would be taken by many, many committees as incriminating in and of itself.
Ray Franz agrees. In his book "In Search of Christian Freedom", page 321, footnote 18 he notes, "In cases where a person is suspected of disagreement with the organization, he may be interrogated about the things he reads, the persons he speaks to, the letters he receives, virtually nothing being viewed as "off limits" for his interrogators. Failure to answer all questions creates jeopardy for the person."
So in both policy and practice, JW defendants do not have the RIGHT to remain silent with impunity. In the US "wordly" system they do.
RIGHT TO COUNSEL
This is a constitutional RIGHT in the US system. This is not allowed in the JW system. A poorly educated, uninformed or inarticulate defendant in the JW system has no champion for his rights if the elders become arbitrary, harsh or out-of-line.
RIGHT OF REDRESS
One of the marvels about the US system is that when unfair laws are passed, juries cannot be punished for overruling them. If the jury sees that a law is wrong it is its civic DUTY to not convict someone for disobeying it. This is true no matter what kind of garbage the judge says about they "must enforce the law. It is not their duty to change the law." Smart jurors who realize a law is bad can acquit someone who breaks it and nothing can be done about it! The jury is our last guardian of freedom in the US. When the jury system is working as it was designed to work corrupt legislators will soon discover it does no good to pass unfair laws, since the juries won't convict on them, anyway.
In the US system, when an unfair law is repealed, persons convicted under the unfair law can seek redress by means of lawsuits.
If a JW "law" is injust, the elders are still compelled to enforce it. A guilty defendant doesn't have a chance in that situation, even when the "law" is later changed or repealed. Redress provisions for defendants convicted for unfair laws that are later changed are not available in the JW system. The unfair convictions stand.
PROSECUTION WITNESSES
In the US judicial system, only one prosecution witness is enough to convict, IF the testimony proves guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." Furthermore, the prosecution witness doesn't even need to be a witness to the crime, either. She/he can be a forensic pathologist, for example.
The JW judicial system uses, as a model, PART of the Biblical instructions at 1 Tim. 5:19, which states, "Do not admit an accusation against an older man, except only on the evidence of two or three witnesses."
Unless there is a confession, there must be at least two witnesses against the defendant. THAT is the part the WTS follows in the above-quoted scripture. They DON'T follow the Biblical instruction which states they can NOT "admit an accusation against" someone, EXCEPT ONLY on the evidence of those "two or three" witnesses. In violation of this scripture, circumstantial evidence CAN be used to convict and with tragic consequences as we will soon see in this essay.
PUBLIC VERSUS PRIVATE PROCEEDINGS
In the US Justice system (except for some very unusual circumstances) all trials are public. This means that persons not even involved in the case are allowed to be eye and ear witnesses to the proceedings. The founding fathers of the US wisely made this possible so that the general public could always have the opportunity to see if justice is being carried out or not. When there are problems with the system or people in the system, the public will be made aware of it, because it IS public. The OJ Simpson case is a classic example of blundering by the judge, prosecution, defense AND jury! The whole world saw it. If only the whole world had seen the Raymond Franz, Ed Dunlap, Rene Vasquez, et.al. trials, one wonders if they would have been conducted more fairly.
By contrast, The JW judicial system is quite secretive.
"Do not send an individual any kind of correspondence that directly accuses him of wrongdoing." - Flock, Unit 5(b), page 110
"If the accused wishes to bring witnesses who can speak in his defense regarding the matter, he may do so. However, observers are not permitted. No tape-recording devices are allowed." - Flock Unit 5(b), page 110
"Do not discuss private or judicial matters with members of your family, including your wife, or with others who are not involved. " Flock, Unit 5(a), page 105
"Be extremely careful that you do not inadvertently disclose private information when speaking on the telephone while others are listening in or when people are nearby where they could possible hear the conversation." Ibid
"If an appeal is not made within seven days, announce the disfellowshipping...The presiding overseer should check the announcement to make sure that it conforms to the guidelines outlined by the Society." - Flock Unit 5(c) page 122
"The accused may also present witnesses whose testimony would have a bearing on the case. The witnesses should not be present for the entire hearing, since they do not need to hear details and testimony that do not affect them. However, witnesses to the wrongdoing should be present if it becomes necessary to continue the reproof of the accused "before all onlookers." (1 Tim. 5:20)" - Flock, Unit 5(c), page 119
Note that the flock book states that the defense witnesses must be excused after giving their testimony, so the rest of the hearing is "secret" to even them. But "witnesses to the WRONGDOING SHOULD be present" for the rest of the hearing. Weird.
Here we can see that the society has twisted the expression "all onlookers" to be ONLY the prosecution witnesses, judges and the accused in a typical JW judicial hearing. Here the WTS has determined that "all onlookers" does NOT include witnesses for the accused.
This paragraph clearly informs us that ONLY the witnesses for the prosecution can be present for the entire hearing. This rule further diminishes the defendant's right to a fair trial. Let's say witnesses for both the defense and the prosecution were present when the alleged "crime" occurred, and the defense witness was excused after his/her testimony. Let's further say that the prosecution witness later made other incriminating statements against the defendant. Since the defense witness was already compelled to leave, the defendant has no way of knowing in this trial if the defense witness would present additional testimony that would rebut the later statements made by the prosecution. While some elders may allow defense witnesses to return and rebut further testimony by prosecution witnesses, it is not stated as a RIGHT anywhere in the Flock book.
In another example of convoluted reasoning as to what is meant by "all onlookers" the WTS says this:
*** w81 9/1 24 Repentance Leading Back to God ***
"Toward the conclusion of the judicial committee meeting, after guilt has been established, the elders offer Scriptural reproof concerning the wrongdoing. They have presented the witnesses who testified concerning the sin, and such informed persons are invited to hear the Biblical reproof. It is thus offered "before all onlookers" or 'in the sight of all.' These, who are "the rest" mentioned in 1 Timothy 5:20, may thus be helped to have a healthy fear concerning sin, to see the need to avoid sin and the circumstances that can lead to it.'"
In otherwords, the WTS has redefined the expression "before all onlookers" to mean "before all the prosecutors and the defendant." It also doesn't bother to tell us that "informed persons" means only the prosecution and its witnesses.
1 Timothy 5:20 states, "Reprove before all onlookers the persons who practice sin, that the rest also may have fear."
So the WTS has implied that ONLY the prosecutors are the ones who should have this "fear" of the reproof, and they can only get this "fear" from attending a closed judicial hearing. What an absurd twisting of a perfectly clear scripture.
The US system does not allow this sort of thing to happen.
MORE SECRECY
When a person is convicted of a crime in the US system, the conviction is put in writing, and the defendant may get a copy of that conviction if he wishes.
Regarding a decision to disfellowship: "When the decision is made, inform the individual of it orally." - Flock Unit 5(c), page 121
Translation: don't put the decision in writing for the defendant.
"Using the forms provided by the Society, the branch office should be notified of the person's name, the Scriptural reason for the disfellowshiping, and the date of the action. (S-77 and S-79 forms). A brief review of the evidence that was presented should also be given."
"A written summary of the case should be prepared by the committee and put in a sealed envelope to be placed in the congregation file." - Flock, Unit 5(c), page 121-122.
Translation: put it in wring for everyone else but the defendant and the congregation in general.
Nowhere in the Flock book does it state that the convicted JW is allowed to have a copy of the summary of the evidence. This lack of a RIGHT to have this information makes the committee members answerable only to themselves. They could write anything they wanted in their summary and the defendant would have no right to challenge it, since he doesn't have the RIGHT to see it.
On a side note, it is interesting to note that the society keeps information on DFd people even after they are dead! Ray Franz states on page 323 of his book "In Search of Christian Freedom" that, "orange-colored "disfellowshiped" cards are used for the file on disfellowshiped persons. Jon Mitchell, who worked in the Service Department, as well as in secretarial work in the Executive Offices, relates that, after cards were stamped with the word "Deceased", they were then put back in the file. He quotes a fellow-worker, Lee Waters, as observing, "We must be the only organization which keeps records like this for dead people."
In the US system, every single WORD that is spoken in court is recorded, and is almost always available to anyone requesting it. In the JW system, tape recorders are not even allowed, and the defendant has no RIGHT to obtain a copy of the summary of evidence against him.
Which system better protects the rights of the accused?
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
In the US legal system, circumstantial evidence in and of itself is only very rarely allowed to convict someone. The most famous example of this is the Charles Manson trial. He didn't actually murder any of the victims, yet he was convicted and initially given the death sentence. Why? Because the circumstantial evidence was so overwhelming that he was the direct instigator of the murders. If you're interested, read "Helter Skelter" by Vincent Bugliosi for all the details.
In the JW system, circumstantial evidence is allowed but only if it is "strong", not "overwhelming":
" Strong circumstantial evidence, such as pregnancy or evidence (testified to by at least two witnesses) that the accused stayed all night in the same house with a person of the opposite sex (or in the same house with a known homosexual) under improper circumstances, is acceptable." - Flock Unit 5(b) page 111.
This loosely and poorly worded sentence leaves it up to the local elders to determine exactly what "strong circumstantial evidence" and "improper circumstances" actually means, or for that matter what "proper circumstances" means. Leaving it up to the elders to decide can and has resulted in tragic stories caused by evil men, like the following story related in "In Search of Christian Freedom", page 330-331. A young couple had just started studying with the witnesses:
--------------------
"Both of their mothers had become Witnesses and they convinced the couple to study with Jehovah's Witnesses as this would get their future marriage off to a good start. They began studies with a couple serving as "pioneers" in the area, the husband studying with the young man, the wife with the young woman. The young persons showed real desire to gain knowledge of God's will; and after a few months began attending some of the Witness meetings. The wife of the "pioneer" couple studying with them then relates what happened:
"One Friday my husband received a call from the young man, saying he had a problem and asking would we please come over. When we arrived at his apartment, the young woman was also there. She explained that the night before her stepfather had thrown her out of the house. Having nowhere else to go at that late hour, she had gone to her fianc's apartment and, concerned to do the "right thing," he gave her his bedroom and slept on the sofa. Their call was because they wanted to find a place immediately for her to stay. My husband and I volunteered to let her stay with us until she could either resolve things with her stepfather or find another place to stay. She was to come to our house that evening. As we drove away, my husband told me that even though he felt fine about the arrangement he nevertheless wanted to "clear it" with the congregation elders first. I said I could not understand why we needed the elders' "okay" to have a house guest-particularly why my husband as head of the house needed this. He still was determined to talk with the elders before the young woman's arrival at our house, saying that he wanted the elders to know that he was "submissive to the organization."
"That evening he met with two elders and after a long, private discussion was told that under no circumstances should we allow the young woman into our house. I was shocked and my husband seemed quite surprised as well.
"We arrived home after 9:30 p.m. and learned that the young woman had been waiting for us for hours but had left. My husband phoned her and informed her that the elders did not want her to stay with us and that our offer thus had to be canceled. The young couple did not know what to do and decided she would have to spend yet another night at the apartment.
"The next morning at 9 a.m., two elders knocked at the apartment door, were invited in. The young couple said that at first they were delighted that someone was coming to help them. The elders, however, simply asked if it was true that the young woman had spent two nights in the apartment. The couple said it was true and tried to explain why. The elders replied that that was all they needed to know and told them that in view of what had happened they had no other choice than to formally "disassociate" the couple the next day at the Sunday meeting. There was presumption of guilt beyond what the elders had been told.
"We arrived shortly after the elders left and found the couple depressed and disillusioned. I could not believe that such action was necessary in view of the circumstances, particularly people who had just been studying three months and had attended a few meetings. When my husband contacted the elders, they informed him that they could properly "disassociate" anyone as long as the person had attended even "one meeting." Sunday, with the couples' mothers and two sisters present, the formal announcement of their "disassociation" was read and the audience told that they were not to be associated with. The young couple were now also split off from their families.
"My husband made an appointment a few days later to speak
with a circuit overseer. Seemingly very empathetic, the man however told us that, while he wished he had known before the announcement was made, now that it was made there was nothing that could be done about it, that the Society did not want to publicly override local elders.
Comment: it is clear to me here that the society doesn't give a whit about what happened to people like that poor young woman and her fiance. They are more concerned about not "causing a stir" by publicly overriding local elder decisions. Where is the justice in that?
"The young couple said they felt that whatever they now did
they were condemned anyway. They began living together, after a few months married, had children, eventually got divorced. I cannot help but wonder if, had they not been subjected to public embarrassment and alienated from their respective families at that early point in their young lives, whether life's road would have been smoother for them. Regardless of whether their lives would have been different or not, the manner in which they were with certainly displayed little of love, mercy or compassion.
"This action took place previous to the November 15, 1988,
Watchtower and its ruling that unbaptized persons engaging in wrongdoing are not to be officially pronounced, or treated as, disfellowshiped persons. Perhaps under the new ruling the elders might have acted differently. This, however, simply underscores the wrongness of the imposition of organizationally-formulated rules, rules that override individual conscience, that restrict men from expressing the compassion and mercy, as well as sensible judgment, they might normally express. The damage done by such rules is, in many cases, irreversible.
-----------------------
Among other things, one has to ask himself what RIGHT those b**tard elders had to tell that couple that "under no circumstances" could they provide a night's shelter for that young woman. Had they not assumed and used authority they didn't have, this tragedy might well have been averted.
Notice the Flock quote again and how it gives absolutely no clear-cut instructions on how to deal with overnight guests:
Strong circumstantial evidence, such as pregnancy or evidence (testified to by at least two witnesses) that the accused stayed all night in the same house with a person of the opposite sex (or in the same house with a known homosexual) under improper circumstances, is acceptable." - Flock Unit 5(b) page 111.
In the case of this kind of circumstantial evidence, the accused is presumed GUILTY, not innocent. US laws protect us from situations like this ever happening.
BITS AND PIECES:
I said:
"Does the WTS hold "public trials" as God directed the Israelites and Jesus directed his disciples, or "secret star-chamber hearings?"
And you pointed out that the JWs actually practice something in between. Do you feel that "something in between" is closer to a public trial, or closer in secrecy to a "star-chamber" hearing? Do you think that some of the injustices I've pointed out in this essay would have occurred if the JW judicial process was MORE public and LESS "star chamber"? As you've correctly stated, the term "star chamber", (which was an actual practice in England from the 1500's to 1641) was characterized by secrecy and often being irresponsibly arbitrary and oppressive. Wouldn't you agree that while not PATENTLY being "star chamber", the JW judicial process PERMITS "star chamber-like" decisions to be made? That was the point I was trying to illustrate in my original post.
Friend, you may assume that everything you've said in your posts to the original thread (except the names you called me) that I haven't directly addressed in this essay, I am in agreement with. This is particularly true with your own ideas of how to improve the JW judicial system. I would only add that I think it needs to be improved even more than the ideas you've put forth.
Final question:
Would any reasonable person prefer to be tried for a SECULAR offense by 1) the US (or similar) judicial system, or 2) the JW judicial system?
Would any reasonable person prefer to be tried for a RELIGIOUS offense by 1) the US (or similar) judicial system, or 2) the JW judicial system?
I've made my decision on that matter. I think you know what it is. :=)
In my follow-up post, I will discuss in detail the Flock book's guidelines on JW judicial activities.
Friend, I hope you will give the same time and thought in your comments on this matter as I have done in preparing and presenting it. I as well as you, would like to see much reform in the JW judicial process, and I hope that you can see that my comparison between the US and JW systems shows that much reform is needed in the latter.
The last thing you said to me was:
"That's the one thing I like about bulletin boards, that is, for those with guts enough to contribute meaningful dialogue. If you want to play pitch with me you'll have to wear a glove; I think you know why."
No. Why? :)
Doug