Does the Policy of the Watchtower Create a Safe Haven for Child Molesters?

by listen 149 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  fullofdoubtnow

  So far the WT has been exhonerated in the court cases. Keep trying though and maybe you'll eventually win one where the elders really did disregard the WT's policy

  3rdw,

  I am not interested in winning compensation suits. I am interested in seeing innocent children protected from such men, and it seems to me, whatever your wonderful wts child abuse policy says, many children are not receiving this protection. Why this is, I really have no idea, but my suspicion is that, despite claims to the contrary, the wts in general values it's reputation as a clean organisation more highly than it values the safety of children in it's congregations.

  In each of the cases I highlighted, the jw who committed the offenders went to prison, which, I would hope you would agree, is where anyone who abuses a child belongs.In two of the cases, the jws concerned admitted their guilt in court. In all 3 cases, it was the victims, not the elders, who went to the police. In all 3 cases, the victims had previously reported the matter to the elders, who did next to nothing to stop the abuse, so it continued until the victims went to the police.

  The wts may well continue to win compensation battles, but there are a fair number of individual jws around who have been found guilty of child abuse and, rightly, imprisoned, and I suspect that number will grow as long as proper implementation of the wts child abuse policy continues to play second fiddle to the reputation of the wts.
• 

  stevenyc

  I ask again, What would you accept as proof? Simple. Show us where the WT's child abuse policy was in the past: 3. Former child molesters (other than the reasonable exceptions made in the policy) may be appointed as servants in the congregation. 4. Reproved or convicted child molesters may remain servants in the congregation as long as know one knows about it. Perhaps it would be good to transfer them to another congregation where no one knows about what he did.

  TO ALL BODIES OF ELDERS

  March 14, 1997

  Who is a known child molester? The January l,1997, Watchtower article "Let Us Abhor What Is Wicked" mentions on page 29 that a man "known to have been a child molester would not qualify for privileges in the congregation. An individual "known" to be a former child molester has reference to the perception of that one in the community and in the Christian congregation. In the eyes of the congregation, a man known to have been a child molester is not "free from accusation' and "irreprehensible," nor does he have "a fine testimony from those on the outside." (1 Tim. 3:1-?, l0; 5:22: Titus l:7) ln view of his past, people in the community would not respect him, and the brothers might even stumble over his appointment.

  It may be possible that some who were guilty of child molestation were or are now serving as elders, ministerial servants, or regular or special pioneer. Others may have been guilty of child molestation before they were baptized. The bodies of elders should not query individuals. However, the body of elders should discuss this matter and give the Society a report on anyone who is currently serving or who formerly served in a Society-appointed position in your congregation who is known to have been guilty of child molestation in the past. Thirdwitness, to reiterate, most of us here are not saying there is no policy. We are not saying that the Watch Tower doesn't mind have molesters. We are saying the policy is wrong. And, because of a policy which, as stated, 1st priority to the children, 2nd priority to money, it makes it very confusing for elders to fully safeguard children in their congregations. Sexual predators are deliberately deviant and scheming in these matters, and are masters of confidence tricks. The policy is not strong enough, and it will eventually come back on the society. steve
• 

  Gerard

  Silent Lambs or Noisy Goats?

  3rdwitness, you deserve what is heading your way.

  G
• 

  Odrade

  
  3W, you are promulgating lies about the Vicki Boer case. You should do your research. The WTS LOST their case, and she was awarded damages in the amount of $5000 because of the negligence of the WTS in protecting Vicki Boer from sexual assault.

  You are woefully misinformed about the judgement "against" her in the amount of $137,000. Due to the workings of the Canadian courts, if the court award is less than the settlement amount offered by the defendant, the plaintiff becomes responsible for court fees. This was the outcome of this trial. The WTS was found negligent, NOT "exhonerated." This was a loss for the WTS. The only "win" they had was that there was not enough substantive evidence for some of the charges. "Insufficient evidence" has NEVER been the same thing as "exhonerated."

  So, when bolstering your position, you would do well to base your argumentation on something other than lies. Your intellectual dishonesty is surpassed only by your lack of factual information.

  For more information, see: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/8/54590/1.ashx

  Follow some of the links contained it that thread's 8 pages, and you will find videos from her court sessions where an elder under oath flat out lies about WTS policy, as well as pages from the court decision and transcripts.

  OR... you could just continue to make your lie-based arguments... Jehovah HATES liars, you know.

  edit: it appears the "elder lying under oath" video is not linked in that thread. Anyone know where to find it?
• 

  Gerard

  Copied from http://www.watchtower.org/library/g/1993/10/8a/article_03.htm:

  However, rest assured that God sees what they do. ( Job 34:22 ) Unless they repent and change, he will not forget their vile acts. He will bring them out into the open in his due time. (Compare Matthew 10:26 .) And he will exact justice.

  Allowing the child the normal reaction to such a terrible event, such as grief, anger, mourning, will give him the opportunity eventually to put the abuse in the past.

  Why is this manual instructing to convince the child to "put the abuse in the past"? Where is the REAL solution of reporting the abuser to the police so it can be stopped?

  Some legal experts advise reporting the abuse to the authorities as soon as possible. In some lands the legal system may require this. But in other places the legal system may offer little hope of successful prosecution.

  Tell me, 3rdW. How come nowhere in this child-protection manual is stated to report the abuse to the police where REAL investigation and scientific forensics can be performed? JWs are denying the performance of criminal investigations. That is the issue!
• 

  Odrade

  THIS is a policy: http://www.dioceseoftulsa.org/environment/policies.html

  Here's a small excerpt:

  1. The person who receives such information should make a report to the Department of Human Services in the County where the abuse is alleged to have occurred. <!--[if !supportFootnotes]--> [1] <!--[endif]-->

  2. The person who receives the complaint or accusation shall also notify his or her immediate supervisor, pastor, administrator or school principal, who shall immediately notify the Vicar General or Chancellor of the Diocese. In each case, information reported should include the following:

  	Name, address, telephone number and age of victim, together with the name, address and telephone number of parents of the victim, the nature of the abuse and the name, address and telephone number of the alleged perpetrator.
  	Even if the source is anonymous, an attempt should be made to obtain enough information (names, addresses, telephone numbers of persons having knowledge) to permit an investigation.
  	Whether a DHS report has been made or will be made by the person who is the source of the information.
  	If the source is the victim, or parents of the victim, he or she should be assured that they will be contacted by a representative of the Church.

  1. The person who is the source of the allegation or information should be advised that he or she has an obligation to report the information to the Department of Human Services and should be encouraged to do so.

  The quote above is only a small part of a detailed protocol of very precise steps that MUST be taken by representatives of this diocese immediately, upon hearing any allegations of abuse.

  This from WTS:

  In addition to making a report to the branch office, the elders may be required by law to report even uncorroborated or unsubstantiated allegations to the authorities. If so, we expect the elders to comply. Additionally, the victim may wish to report the matter to the authorities, and it is his or her absolute right to do so.

  IS NOT A POLICY. It is commentary, a statement. To suggest that is it "policy," is utterly laughable. There is absolutely no protocol contained in those two sentences. There is very little protocol in the "policy" of the WTS concerning abuse allegations, other than the one inviolate rule: "Call WT legal immediately." While "call legal" is a good CYA tactic, it is a deplorable "policy" if you are suggesting that it does anything of value in protecting children from further violations.
• 

  KW13

  Yes!
  
  Many people were victims as kids from the most prominent members of the Congregation, even those in authority.
  
  Not only does it protect Child Molesters it makes it near impossible for any child to prove they are telling the truth and then they are painted out to be bad for bringing reproach on Jehovahs Name.
  
  I was never molested but my Stepdad would physically hit me, my mum only recently decided to tell the elders and they said it needs two witnesses.
  
  THANK GOD i left!
• 

  thirdwitness

  Kw, in your case there were two witnesses . You and your mom. It should have been handled. If it wasn't then the elders disregard the policy.
• 

  Odrade

  3W, KW is a minor. According to the "policy" the elders may disregard his testimony.
• 

  KW13

  yep, and they did.
  
  in the end i opted to confront stepdad personally. this is real life with real people, i see one thing for sure - you can't get further from God than the Witnesses. You could insist that its a one off case, and a failing of individuals not the Organization, but basically the Organization is made up of these individuals who are not only imperfect but you have to allow for the possibility of them having their own motives.