Do you have a link for a site that explains the differences, state-by-state, GeorgieGirl???
Pedophiles in your congregation??
by ziddina 56 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
-
-
ziddina
O-kaaay, on that last site, http://www.smith-lawfirm.com/mandatory_reporting.htm
This is stated:
Extent of the knowledge triggering the duty to report varies. Some statutes call for reporting upon a mere "reasonable cause to believe" or a "reasonable suspicion." Other statutes require the reporter to "know or suspect," which is a higher degree of knowledge.
Failure to report suspected child abuse can result in criminal liability, although the liability is typically a misdemeanor punishable by a fine.
Failure to report can result in civil liability.
.....
That last item is MOST significant...
-
Georgiegirl
Hey Z.
No I don't, sorry. I'm sure I can find one but my dinner date just arrived (yay!). This site lists registries by state, however: http://www.sexualoffenders.com/
The AWA was an attempt by Congress to impose federal reporting standards on the states and to create a national registry instead of 50 scattered state registries. Now that the national registry is created, in theory, a sexual offender should not be able to move from state to state (as was the case before). However, the ADA tried to do to much. I would be very surprised if the Supreme Court allows it to stand. It also makes it easier to prosecute a sex offender under federal law instead of state law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Walsh_Child_Protection_and_Safety_Act
-
Georgiegirl
Z - re that site you just found - exactly. Note that all states are required to report - but there are variations - like what triggers a call, etc.
-
ziddina
This site is complicated, but under the first "LAW page one", you can go to "State Laws" and check out the laws specific to your state...
-
ziddina
Have a nice dinner, GeorgieGirl! [drinks and escargot...]
-
ziddina
Well, well, well...
Here's a good example of how the WTBTS SHOULD have been handling the cases of child molestation being reported...
The Baptists are doing a better job at protecting THEIR children than the JWs!!! At least, the Baptists are talking OPENLY about the problem, and how to spot it, report it, etc...
http://www.reducingtherisk.com/onlineseminars/reportingchildabuse/reportingchildabuse1.html
Here's the first paragraph of that BAPTIST site - discussing the issue of child molestation... Can you spot the differences between the way these Baptists are handling the problem, and the way the WTBTS is???
"Developing and following a reporting procedure is a critical component in a sexual abuse prevention program. Child sexual abuse thrives when it goes unnoticed or unreported. Often, an abusive situation continues because of someone's failure to report it. All church workers need to know what constitutes an occasion for reporting, the reporting channels they should use, and their obligations to make a report...."
Note - no comments about "leaving it in Jehovah's hands"...
Zid
-
ziddina
Ah, hah... I was looking in the wrong area on the "Silent Lambs" website...
Here's the pertinent information: http://www.silentlambs.org/assistance/legal.cfm
And it says, among other things...:
It appears there are a few misconceptions when it comes to the reporting of child abuse.... The point is that in all fifty States it is MANDATORY to report child molestation....
Now the question remains is it MANDATORY in all fifty states for clergy to report child molestation? The answer is no. Only sixteen States require mandatory cleric reporting of child molestation. So when I make comments that relate to NON-MANDATORY reporting I refer to the State law that allows clergy to not report child molestation.
The next question that would arise, are parents MANDATED to report child abuse. The answer is YES! Each State has certain laws and penalties that are defined locally for parental non-reporting of child molestation. These penalties can range from being charged with a misdemeanor and facing some type of fine or jail time to loss of custodial care due to negligence.
The federal law Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA)(Jan. 1996 version), 42 U.S.C. 5101, et seq.. requires all fifty States to comply with MANDATORY reporting or lose federal funding, no State is not receiving Federal funding due to non-compliance...."
So, off I go to look for THAT list... Somehow...
-
ziddina
And here is a good site that discusses the "confidentiality versus forgiveness" issue - and I agree with the author's take on the situation...
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1044
""Ministers. . . are charged to maintain all confidences inviolate, including confessional confidences." The statement by the Lutheran Church in America tries to protect the confidence of the parishioner while allowing room for the discretion of the pastor: "No minister . . . shall divulge any confidential disclosure given to him in the course of his care of souls or otherwise in his professional capacity, except with the express permission of the person who has confided in him or in order to prevent a crime" (Minutes of the United Lutheran Church in America, 22nd Biennial Convention, 1960, quoted in Seward Reese, "Confidential Communications to Clergy," Ohio State Law Journal [vol. 24 (1963) 1, p. 68).
As the Lutheran statement indicates, the clergy ethic of confidentiality must be placed in a larger ethical context. There may be, as Sissela Bok puts it, "reasons sufficient to override the force of all these premises, as when secrecy would allow violence to be done to innocent persons" ("The Limits of Confidentiality," The Hastings Center Report [February 1983], p. 26). The law itself is unclear as to the clergyperson's duty to disclose someone's intent to commit a crime or cause harm. Is the clergyperson who does not report the probability of a crime legally liable for the crime? Are clergypersons obliged to protect the innocent, who in this case are children?
It is useful here to make a distinction between confidentiality and secrecy. A commitment to secrecy is a commitment never, under any circumstance, to share the information in question. This commitment on the part of the priest is inherent in a sacramental confession. Confidentiality, on the other hand, means holding information in trust and sharing it only in the interest of the person involved -- with their permission, or in order to seek consultation with another professional, or in order to protect others from being harmed. The ethic of confidentiality is intended to assist people in getting help for their problems; it is not intended to prevent people from being held accountable for their harmful actions or to keep them from getting the help they need. Shielding people from the consequences of their behavior is likely to endanger others and only postpone the act of repentance that is needed.
Another ethical ‘principle that applies here is that of justice-making. Christian Scripture is very specific about responding to the sins of others. "Take heed to yourselves; if your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him" (Luke 17:3) Those who sin and who harm others must be confronted with their deeds so that they might repent. Both Hebrew and Christian Scriptures are clear that repentance has to do with change: "Get yourselves a new heart and a new spin so turn and live" (Ezek. 18:31-32) In this context of accountability, justice and repentance, forgiveness and reconciliation may be possible. And repentance and reconciliation should be a minister's primary concerns.
It is also critical to keep in mind what we know about those who sexually and physically abuse children.
• The fact of child abuse must be revealed in order for the victim and offender to be helped.
• Offenders will minimize and deny their activities.
• Offenders will continue to abuse children unless they get special treatment. And they will not be able to follow through on their good intentions or their genuine remorse without that help.
• Treatment of offenders is most effective when it is ordered and monitored by the courts.
• Clergypersons do not have all the skills and resources needed to treat offenders or to assist victims.
• Quick forgiveness of the offender is likely to be a form of cheap grace, and is unlikely to lead to repentance.
It should also be pointed out that it is actually rare for a child abuser to come forward and confess his or her sins to a pastor. What happens, in the experience of most pastors, is that a child or teen-ager who is being abused, or another parent or family member, comes in search of assistance. What is involved, then, is not a confession but a cry for help. Confidentiality is still a concern, but not in the sense of the "confessional seal." Rather, the concern is to respect the nature of the information that has been shared and to meet the particular needs of the victim.
Responding to such a situation is never easy. But there is a system of child protective services in every state to ensure that an abused child is protected and an abuser gets help. This system is no more or less perfect than the church, but it is a vital resource. The pastor needs to support the efforts of those who have been harmed to break through the veil of secrecy and get help. Though responding to the victims' cries for help will usually involve difficult ambiguous choices, what is important is that the pastor have a clear purpose: to protect the one who has been victimized and to hold the offender accountable. Confidentiality should be seen as a means of accomplishing this end rather than a way of keeping the abuse secret and avoiding the fact of accountability. [LEGAL accountability, I might add... Zid]
Confidentiality should not be regarded as a sacred cow. As Bok argues: "The premises supporting confidentiality are strong, but they cannot support practices of secrecy -- whether by individual clients, institutions, or professionals -- that undermine and contradict the very respect for persons and for human bonds that confidentiality was meant to protect" (p. 30). The mandatory reporting of child abuse should be viewed in this context, rather than as a challenge to the principle of pastoral confidentiality. Mandatory reporting laws can assist clergypersons in fulfilling their responsibilities. Hence, the need for mandatory reporting and the need for pastoral confidentiality may not be as contradictory as they at first appear."
Again, NO COMMENTS about "leaving it in Jehovah's hands"...
And that was from a LUTHERAN website... A VERY different approach to child molesters than that taken by the WTBTS!!
-
ziddina
Here's a very detailed discussion of the "minister's confidentiality" and the legal ramifications...
http://www.churchlawtoday.com/private/library/pcl/p04h.htm
"All fifty states enumerate categories of persons who are under a legal duty to report abuse to designated civil authorities. In most states, such “mandatory reporters” must report both actual and reasonably suspected cases of child abuse. The designated categories of reporters generally include physicians, dentists, hospital employees, nurses, coroners, school employees, nursery school workers, law enforcement officers, and licensed psychologists. Many states add any other person with responsibility for the care of children—meaning that most adults are “mandatory reporters” of child abuse whatever their occupation. In several states, persons not having a mandatory reporting status are considered “permissive reporters” and they may, but are not legally required, to report cases of abuse to the designated civil authorities.
Ministers are listed among those professions having a mandatory duty to report known or reasonably suspected cases of child abuse in only a few states. 3 Nearly half the states impose a mandatory duty to report on anyone having knowledge or a reasonable belief that abuse has occurred, and clergy obviously would be under a legal duty to report in these states as well. In the remaining states, clergy may be under a duty to report if they fall within another classification of mandatory reporters, such as school or child care workers and administrators. In summary, many clergy have a mandatory duty to report child abuse. Clergy should not assume that they have no duty to report.
What about the clergy--penitent privilege? As noted in chapter 3 The Clergy Penitent Privilage, clergy in all states cannot be compelled to disclose in a court of law information shared with them in confidence in their capacity as spiritual advisers. Could not clergy defend a failure to report by asserting that the information leading them to suspect that child abuse had occurred was communicated to them in confidence and in the course of spiritual counsel? Four states specifically affirm the clergy--penitent privilege in the context of child abuse reporting, 4 and four states specifically abolish it. 5 Many states generally abolish all privileges (except the attorney--client privilege) in the context of child abuse reporting, and some state laws do not clearly affirm or abolish the clergy--penitent privilege. See Clergy-Penitent Privilage for a summary of the law of each state on this important issue. Even if the clergy--penitent privilege is not abolished by state law in the context of child abuse reporting, it is by no means clear that the privilege will be a defense to a failure to report in a criminal or civil proceeding against the minister, since (1) the information causing a minister to suspect that abuse has occurred may not have been privileged (i.e., it was not obtained in confidence, or it was not obtained during spiritual counseling); and (2) a privilege ordinarily applies only to courtroom testimony (or depositions), and not to a statutory requirement to report to a state agency.
Unfortunately, the elimination or inapplicability of the clergy--penitent privilege in the context of child abuse reporting disregards the therapeutic purpose of the privilege. Many child abusers will be discouraged from seeking spiritual counsel if the privilege does not assure the confidentiality of their communications. This will only compound the problem. If, on the other hand, the privilege were preserved, many child abusers would seek out ministers for spiritual counseling, and the underlying causes of such behavior could be isolated and in some cases corrected. A few states, recognizing that the elimination of the privilege in the context of child abuse reporting may have been counterproductive, have affirmed the privilege. 6 ..."
That last paragraph is disturbing in its implications... But, an organization that has the interests of its most tender, vulnerable members at heart, will NOT hide behind 'details' of the law!!!