by Pubsinger 12 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
Didn't the Judge rule in the Candace Conte trial that WTS did not have a responsibility to notify the congregation only to protect them?
I think this is hugely missing the point. Other churches and organisations have strict policies to protect members from sex offenders but they do not 'notify' in the sense that I think these people want.
So the WT response to that particular question will be 'No. We're not required to and neither would anyone else.'
The judges' unanimous decision was to absolve any organization of a responsibility to warn anyone connected to them, that a pervert was in their midst!
They endorsed the Org's present position of the Elders & the Org knowing, but keeping everyone else in the dark.
What a wonderful "spiritual paradise" we're in!!
Although it seems obvious to us that they should warn members, the fact is that it isn't the law and so they are not compelled to.
If you think about it, drafting legislation would be difficult. Exactly who is classed as "a member" and what organizations would need to comply? How would the notification occur?
Think about it and how you would draft a law and how such laws would apply to various groups with less defined membership and attendance.
There are reasons why the law is as it is and limited to people who would directly work with children (schools, school volunteers etc...). I think a more pragmatic thing to push for is mandatory reporting to the authorities. Failing to report child abuse by anyone who becomes aware of it should be a criminal offence. There is no reason I can think of why 'not reporting' would ever be the right thing to do.
Of course that doesn't absolve them of the moral obligation to protect children and they should be judged on their failure to do that, certainly on their willingness to knowingly put children at risk by recommending people they know to be offenders as "good with children". Their failure to report crimes and their obstructive and uncooperative approach to investigations are damning too.
BTW: Oops, sorry - I think I just fat-finger deleted a post on this topic. I'll restore it when I'm at my PC
I think a more pragmatic thing to push for is mandatory reporting to the authorities. Failing to report child abuse by anyone who becomes aware of it should be a criminal offence. There is no reason I can think of why 'not reporting' would ever be the right thing to do.
Flat Out there is only one way to respond as an JW or Elder when it becomes known or suspected that a child has been molested and that is the parents or other family member should be directed to report the situation immediately to the authorities and help make sure the child is safe. The person accused must be questioned and investigated.
Sorry , but child abuse trumps any doctrine or clergy privilege as the Catholic Church is learning and as the WTBTS is also learning.
Sorry Jesus your two witness rule doesn't apply to a child or adult who has been abused. The Societies legal department is a nest of fools.
If a church or KH seeks to deflect the accusation they should in turn be investigated and the public needs to know.
This means having the laws of the state be uniformed when it comes to child abuse. So no matter where a child abuser runs to they can be arrested.
I do not believe that the religious leaders should HAVE to tell the police, no more than psychiatrists. I am sure that a great deal of victims seek help from their religious leaders who, in turn, advice the, encourage them and help them in seeking help from the police.
Unfortunately, with the JW in particular, that is not the case. Yes, Elders are told not to do a thing if the victim wants to go to the cops, but they are not told to provide help and comfort in a process that involves the police. There is no instructions to the elders to advise the victim to go to the cops.
This is where the issue really is. A victim tells the elders that she has gone to the cops or wants to go to the cops and suddenly, there will be this “uncomfortable” moment where the elders will say: it is your choice. They are not allowed to say: Good for you! What a good decision! No, it will be an uncomfortable: “It is your choice”.
Other members will not know what is wrong, but they will sense the “uncomfortable” situation and will assume that you have a problem with the elders; and anyone who has an issue with the elders is spiritually week. This will translate to slowly becoming outcast from the group (limited conversations at the hall, not being invited by anyone, having difficulty finding someone to go door to door with).
In the end, the peer pressure
will build up to a level not seen among kids in high school!
Unfortunately, I do not believe that people outside of the JW can understand
all this and just how terrible this situation becomes.
This explains why I believe that if there was a law surrounding this, it would be that the religious leaders HAVE to urge the victims to go to the police.
There should be a law that stipulates that registered sex offenders are to be identified as such in religious environments. It would be obvious that these religious organization would be hesitant to do that as it might effect their attendance and aren't churches already struggling with that .
The Catholic religion has recently stepped up their approach to identifying these individuals, why cant all religions do the same ?
A pedophile, a identified one or not should not be able to freely socialize in environments where people are deemed trustworthy and safe. This is just asking for trouble.
My earlier comment that was accidentally deleted was that it doesn't matter what the legal obligation is.
There is a MORAL obligation to warn the parents. The law of the land may not require it, but the laws of human decency do.
