by luffy 22 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
""Wrong, DNA cannot serve as the second witness. Not reliable enough, or that is the paraphrased feelings of the WT on the matter.""
News to me! Solid medical evidence has always been accepted around here. A competent medical examination and statement from the doctor has been used in a couple of cases I am aware of.
""As for what constitutes "acceptable witness," it should be noted that only another member of the congregation - a Dub - is acceptable. Worldly people are not.""
Sorry to disagree with you here but "Worldy people" as you put it can and have been "acceptable witness".
Everyone involved is reminded of the reproach that will be brought on Jehovah's name if the "incident" is reported.
The legal department urges everyone to "follow the law" but also slips in the reminder about keeping Jehovah's name clean.
WLG
We are dealing with two different systems regarding the 2-witness rule and going to the police - internal and external issues
The internal
The elders in a congregation are taught to use the 2-witness rule regarding child abuse cases. It applies within the congregation only. If there are not two witnesses and if the accused denies the allegations, the elders will conclude there is nothing they can do. Therefore the accused gets off scot free and children in the cong are still at risk. This is especially scary if the abuser is the parent of the victim.
The victim and family will be told they are not to repeat their accusations to anyone within the cong. If they do they will be charged with slander and could be disciplined within the cong. and in some cases thrown out of the cong
The external
While any JW is able to go to the authorities there are a couple of loopholes that are used extensively to stop them from going outside the cong.
According to the WTS, the WTS is above all man-made law. When there is a difference, the WT law always overrides the law of the land. The WTS will claim that their law of God is above the law of the land.
Therefore: if a judicial committee determines there is not enough proof (admission or 2 witnesses) then that is the end of the matter. They do state JWs can go to the authorities but the loopholes will stop most JWs from going outside the cong to the laws of the land.
- JWs will use various scriptures to claim that if a person is sinned against they have a God-ordained method to deal with the "sin"
- Approach the person who hurt you and try to make peace.
- If that doesn't work then take 2 witnesses to act as witnesses to the confrontation.
- If that doesn't work then go to the elders
- No witness should ever do anything to bring shame of Jehovahs' name or his organization, the WTS. Therefore if you go to the authorities you should never let them know you are a JW. This will stop most JWs in their tracks. If they aren't allowed to explain the relationship between the accused and the victim then it becomes difficult to explain what happened
- Going to the authorities will immediately activate a slander accusation by the abuser, claiming that since the elders found him not guilty, the victim has no right to go elsewhere and destroy his good reputation. Threats of expulsion will stop them from going outside the cong. If they want to stay in good standing they will stay quiet. Only those who are prepared to walk away will take these steps.
The victims are effectively gagged by WTS while the abuser is given a free pass to search out other victims
BeepBeep: News to me! Solid medical evidence has always been accepted around here. A competent medical examination and statement from the doctor has been used in a couple of cases I am aware of.
What do you mean by "around here"? This forum? Your local elders -- your judicial committee? Do you know of any WT publications that support it? You may want to check out this recent link.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/8/119443/1.ashx
Fats
Sorry to disagree with you here but "Worldy people" as you put it can and have been "acceptable witness".
Beep Beep the operative word in the "Flock" book is may. The elders may accept testimony from a worldly person or they may not. It is at their discretion. The elders in my congregation refused to hear from my grandmother and an aunt because they were worldly and "you know how worldly people lie".
The same applies to accepting testimony of a minor. The eldesr may accept it, or they may not. Again at their discretion. I'd have to dig out my copy of the "Flock" book again, but I believe the same parameters apply to any type of physical evidence.
That is hardly a very firm policy is it?
I'm glad "around here" accepted it. But that doesn't mean much elsewhere.
All true. As legalistic as the WTS is, it's definitely true that different elders/bodies/committees handle situations differently. As in the judicial case I referenced above...
1) When speaking to my C.O. at the time, he (a very studious guy) told me we probably wouldn't be able to find the man guilty because, although we had two witnesses, they were not to the same event. When I showed him the line from the Flock book, "If there are two or three witnesses to the same kind of
wrongdoing but each one is witness to a separate incident, their testimony can be considered," he said, "Well, yes, "can." It says "can." You brothers will have to decide whether you can or not."
As far as I was concerned, if it said, "I can," I was going to damn well do it.
2) When we informed the man we were going to disfellowship, he was outraged. He went to everyone he knew in our congregation and many surrounding, saying, "Can you believe they are disfellowshipping me based on the testimony of a WORLDLY person?!!!"
One of the witnesses was never baptized and hadn't attended meetings since he was quite young, but his testimony was almost exactly that of the JW witness, and we had no reason to disallow it. But the accused happened to have been an elder for many years, and he knew often "worldly" testimony would be thrown out.
When I was disfellowshipped for 10 months, the chairman of my committee (a friend) actually called me up to tell me they arrived at their decision primarily because of one Pharisaical elder who wanted to play hardball. In our conversation, he stated...
"I've been thinking a lot about it, because I'm not so sure it was the right decision. But what do you do when you've got a guy on the committee like that?!"
confession,
Is the victim of an assault not counted as a witness, or does it have to be two seperate people.?
KT
Is the victim of an assault not counted as a witness, or does it have to be two seperate people.?
Yes, Kaytee, the witnesses I referred to were both young men who'd been molested by this man when they were younger. The only other type of witness there could be (I think) is someone who either walked in on (or was a participant in) the molestation.
Is the victim of an assault not counted as a witness, or does it have to be two seperate people.?
That has been deliberately obfuscated. As a result, individual congregations determine for themselves. In my case, I was told I (as the victim) didn't count as a witness.
The two witness rule is there for the sole purpose of setting up as many roadblocks as possible. Jehovah's Witnesses are not interested in actually helping the victim. They want silence so that nothing detracts from selling their literature.
