Judicial Committees and the 'Two Witnesses' Rule

by Joe Grundy 18 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Joe Grundy

  I'm not and never have been, etc.

  I was not even aware JCs existed until a couple of months ago - but now I understand a lot more from the postings I have read (and I find some them tragic).

  Two thoughts struck me as an outsider.

  The first is to agree with the advice/suggestions given by many posters that submission to the JC process is a voluntary thing. In the real world any court or tribunal can only act or consider issues if it has 'competent jurisdiction', laid down by law. A JC only has 'competent jurisdiction' over a JW if the JW consents to that jurisdiction. A simplistic view, I know, and I (now) understand the personal and familial consequences and sanctions that can be brought to bear on the JW. I don't minimise these and I appreciate that never have suffered them I can only 'understand' them in theory.

  My second thought is this. The JWs are a very rule-led organisation and it seems to me that WTBTS has tried to cover every eventuality and lay down directions for it in their various manuals, etc. (Strikes me as an effort to gain complete control and eliminate any independence or avenue for personal conscience led decisions). Given that that's the case, then elders conducting a JC are theoretically strictly bound by the rules and procedures. If they fail to adhere to WTBTS rules, they are themselves liable to be reported to a 'superior' authority and to be sanctioned for failing to follow the rules.

  BUT - for the JC members to be investigated/disciplined, there would have to be (by their own rules) two witnesses as to their conduct. The 'victim/defendant' JW would be one, but who would be the other? Would it be possible for the 'victim/defendant' to insist on having a 'friend' present so that if he/needed to initiate action against the JC he/she would have the requisite second witness?

  Just a thought.
• 

  Scully

  The way a JC usually works is that the accused is supposed to meet with the committee alone. The accused is not allowed to take notes on the proceedings (the Elders™ on the Judicial Committee™ can take notes, however), nor are they permitted to have someone there as moral support, neither are they permitted to call witnesses in their defense. The accusers are not there so that the defendant can refute the accusations.

  If you were to do any of those things, it would be taken as a sign that you were not repentant of the allegations that were being brought against you.
• 

  Confession

  Hi, Joe... Here's an excerpt from something else I once wrote.

  ..during your judicial hearing you will be denied most of the rights generally afforded people in any sort of court. You are not given the right to have someone represent you, nor even the right to have witnesses of your choosing present. There will be no recording nor transcript of the proceedings. While they make sure there are three or more elders present to represent the Watchtower Society's interests, you are allowed no one to represent yours. You have no record of the hearing, no representation, no witnesses of your own; you have no concrete way to demonstrate that you were mistreated or that things weren't handled properly. Only your word (one person) against theirs (three persons.)"

  Great little policy, huh?
• 

  Confession

  "...neither are they permitted to call witnesses in their defense."

  Actually, Scully, they can call witnesses to their defense, but it works like this: they come in, are questioned, then they must leave. They cannot be there for moral support or to hear any other part of the proceedings.
• 

  james_woods

  And, like flag salute, military service, blood transfusion, etc...none of this judicial committee rule-making relates directly to anything in the so-called inspired scriptures.

  That's why we need the Watchtower to "explain" the bible.

  Why -we wouldn't even know that those two obscure references to the 144,000 in Revelation mean they are the only ones in earth history to go to heaven - if it were not for the holy Watchtower. Christians went ignorant of this truth for hundreds of years before the Judge Rutherford revealed it to us through the pages of the holy word. In fact, even Jehovah's Witnesses suffered without the Judicial Committee for a long time before the society set those valuable rules.
• 

  Confession

  [From "Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All The Flock", Unit 5c, Part 1]

  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 responsibi-
  lity, as was required in Israel. (Deut. 17:6, 7; 19:16-21)

  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.
• 

  Scully

  Thanks for posting that Confession. I must be thinking of a couple cases where the accused was denied the opportunity to have witnesses speak on their behalf.
• 

  Confession

  I guess this is the loophole...

  The accused may also present witnesses whose testimony
  
  would have a bearing on the case.

  If the committee decides someone's testimony may not be relevant, I suppose they may disallow the witness.
• 

  A Paduan

  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.

  Well, there's a loophole you can use - it affects them if the person they know is upset by the proceedings
• 

  DannyHaszard

  Danny's Blog the JC can be and often is a kangaroo court