The Watchtower's standards are not a factor. It is not the elder's job to corroborate or substantiate evidence of an alleged crime. If they are informed about a crime the proper authorities should be notified immediately. The reason why a reporting mandate exists in 2012 is because it's a reflection of a moral standard that has always existed. A standard that the Watchtower has to be forced to comply with. The secular authorities or the "Roman Soldiers", however unpleasent they are, are the ones that mediate crime. An "elder" or a deacon of tested nobility (1 Tim 3) would be versed in moral law which is the only true law. Secular laws are just a best guess that reflect the ebb and flow of the laws of morality which have always existed in humanity from the beginning.
The branch should not be notified about the crime. The only reason why they are involved is because they assert to have appointed the shepards of the flock of Jehovah's Witnesses by Holy Spirit. Therefore they have spiritual/legal liability for the actions of the people who they appoint. In the real world a man of nobility would simply notify the authorities of an alleged crime. Like calling 911 when you hear your neighbohr scream. But instead of calling 911 the Watchtower elders speak with a legal department first on the phone and are given instructions that are completely transparent to the secular public and the flock itself. This is immoral and unlawful. The elders of the Watchtower are not actually spiritual leaders, but part of a religious hierarchy scheme with purposes that are also transparent to the public and their own flock. You are defending the JW child protection policy, which actually harms victims. I hope one day you can see the ludicrousness of your actions in this thread. The elders are not qualified as per 1 Tim 3 and the proof is in the pudding.
The laws are not necessary a reflection of moral standards that have always existed (study the Inquisition) and laws change over time. Through the coarse of crime and punishment, a person is allowed rights to verying degrees. No rights would mean a perpetrator should be locked up forever, shot or subjected to torture and mutilation which is what happens to some of these people in prison.
Arguments are waged as to the management of those who commit crimes. Our society has at times had impoverished resources to answer such questions and limited options are available, so all too often, the answer is prison. The truth of the matter, is the government has taken programs it feels are effective alternatives to hospitalization and jails into consideration.
http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/clergymandated.cfm
As a doctrine of some faiths, clergy must maintain the confidentiality of pastoral communications. Mandatory reporting statutes in some States specify the circumstances under which a communication is "privileged" or allowed to remain confidential. Privileged communications may be exempt from the requirement to report suspected abuse or neglect. The privilege of maintaining this confidentiality under State law must be provided by statute. Most States do provide the privilege, typically in rules of evidence or civil procedure. If the issue of privilege is not addressed in the reporting laws, it does not mean that privilege is not granted; it may be granted in other parts of State statutes.
This arrangement exists in the state of California circa 2012. This arrangement obviously won't appease the mind of an atheist. The idea of repenting to a “God” and any “discipline” a church may administer as a form of corrective action. If this law should be amended in 2013, can all churches that respected it be sued into oblivion on a rank-and-file basis? I've never seen it happen.
It's been argued that the practices of Jehovah's Witnesses don't allow for “pastoral communications” to absolve them of their legal obligation to report abuse. I can't understand how this arrangement can even be deemed scriptural.
Do not admit an accusation against an older man, except only on the evidence of two or three witnesses. Reprove before all onlookers persons who practice sin, that the rest also may have fear. 1 Timothy 5:19, 20
The point of bringing this up, is the government has made allowance for a reason to not report abuse. In recognition of this principle, when it comes to incidents that took place before January 1, 1997, when religious leaders became mandated reporters, Jehovah's Witnesses can't automatically incur liability. They respected a principle recognized by the federal government and they obeyed the law.
It's an item of interest that this article was published on January 1, 1997.
w97 1/1 pp. 28-29 Let Us Abhor What Is Wicked
What if a baptized adult Christian sexually molests a child? Is the sinner so wicked that Jehovah will never forgive him? Not necessarily so.
Indeed, his sins can be washed clean if he repents sincerely from the heart and turns his conduct around. However, he may still have to struggle with the wrong fleshly impulses he cultivated. (Ephesians 1:7) And there may be consequences that he cannot avoid.
Depending on the law of the land where he lives, the molester may well have to serve a prison term or face other sanctions from the State. The congregation will not protect him from this.
It seems that Jehovah's Witnesses allow these people civil rights on a limited capacity. They were made aware, that a “child molester” may be lurking amongst you. I don't see that assuming this risk is any different than any other religion that respects the “confidentiality of pastoral communications” accept for the fact that Jehovah's Witnesses excommunicate those who repeat this crime.
...OUTLAW