Protecting pedophiles while protecting children

by stillin 155 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

  • stillin

    Righ. The witnesses already believe that they are special, so it's a small leap for the elders to believe that the 3% would all be believers in almighty god. Of cours, that has made the religion a pedophile's paradise.

  • jhine


  • DogGone


    I wish you were correct and it was that simple. It is not. I am also concerned about misinformation which is why I posted authoritative links to back my claims. I'll certainly provide the benefit of the doubt; you may not have had the time or inclination to read them. But, I'm sure you are as concerned about accuracy as I am. I'm not a lawyer and I welcome the opportunity to be corrected if I am misunderstanding any point of law.

    1. There is no federal reporting law requiring mandatory reporting. There are, however, reporting laws in every province. Those laws are not all exactly the same. (ref:

    2. Every province requires reporting when a child is "in need of protection" or "at risk". This requirement overrides any confidentiality requirements excepting Lawyers. In Simon's scenario the Walmart employee WOULD be required to report in the law of every province I am familiar with. If some have read my posts to indicate that is NOT the case then I am truly sorry. If a child is "in need of protection" you have an absolute lawful duty to report in Canada. Sadly, however, that does NOT mean, as you suggest, every case of abuse must be reported under the laws of Canada. I refer you to the law in BC which defines when reporting is required:

    (b) if the child has been, or is likely to be, sexually abused or exploited by the child's parent;

    (c) if the child has been, or is likely to be, physically harmed, sexually abused or sexually exploited by another person and if the child's parent is unwilling or unable to protect the child;

    (ref: Part 3 - Section 13 and 14)

    (ref: Page 41)

    There is a loophole there you can drive a bus through. The wording is slightly different in Ontario:

    2. The child has been sexually molested or sexually exploited, by the person having charge of the child or by another person where the person having charge of the child knows or should know of the possibility of sexual molestation or sexual exploitation and fails to protect the child.

    3. There is a risk that the child is likely to be sexually molested or sexually exploited as described in paragraph 3.

    (ref: Page 8 and 9)

    (ref: Section 72 (1) of the Child and Family Services Act - Province of Ontario)

    In case you question my interpretation of the law, you may find this page from The Canadian Medical Protective Association helpful:

    Duty to report

    Every province and territory has legislation that imposes a duty on physicians to report to a child protection agency if there are reasonable grounds to believe that a child is in need of protection (which includes sexual abuse).

    Although the Criminal Code does not oblige a physician to report a sexual offence, physicians must consider whether they have such an obligation under their provincial/territorial legislation.

    For example, if a physician suspects that a youth is engaging in sexual activity with a person who is older than the exempted age difference, the physician may be required to report this information to a child protection agency, particularly where the child’s parent is unwilling or unable to protect the child. A similar reporting duty may exist if the physician suspects a child under the age of 12 is engaged in any sexual activity. The physician will wish to consider many factors including the extent to which the child is at risk of sexual abuse or exploitation, and the nature of the relationship with the parents.


    Of course you have a moral duty to report. Of course you do. Sadly, you may not have a legal requirement if, say, the parents are informed and have taken steps to protect the child. In the context of this thread, I think it is important to note where religious organizations have wiggle room. That they exploit this wiggle room to protect thier "reputation" and to protect offenders is deplorable. These laws need improvement.

    3. It is certainly NOT a fact that every molester will reoffend. As if a reason to report is because you are certain they will reoffend. NUTZ. You report because a child is hurt and needs professional help. You report because this needs to be handled by professionals. You report because you want the abuser stopped incase it should happen again. You report because your heart is broke and you must do something. You don't report because of some made up statistic.

    Frankly, as someone who has some experience with adolescent abusers, your statement is infuriating. The reality born out by many studies in many countries is that the majority of convicted sexual criminals do not reoffend. Those who seek treatment, support groups, and learn victim empathy have improved success rates. Please do not repeat this 97% lie. Abusers need to hear that they CAN stop and should not be given this constant societal message that they can't, that they are doomed, that they are absolutely unable to control themselves, that they WILL reoffend. The internal message is "Either kill yourself or just go ahead and reoffend already." It's so wrong and so counterproductive.

    Earlier I linked to a 2010 entry in the Harvard Mental Health Letter which noted:

    One long-term study of previously convicted pedophiles (with an average follow-up of 25 years) found that one-fourth of heterosexual pedophiles and one-half of homosexual or bisexual pedophiles went on to commit another sexual offense against children.

    The other link was from Public Safety Canada which had a great review of the studies available. Although up two days ago, it is offline at the moment. Although not something I like to point to normally, Wikipedia has a decent article which links to some of those studies

    A 2002 study by the United States Department of Justice indicated that recidivism rates among sex offenders was 5.3 percent; that is, about 1 in 19 of released sex offenders were later arrested for another sex crime. The same study mentioned that 68 percent of released non-sex offenders were rearrested for any crime (both sex and non-sex offenses), while 43 percent of the released sex offenders were rearrested for any crime (and 24 percent re-convicted). [3]

    A collection of official studies spanning the years 1983–2010 for all 50 states and the federal government of the US has been assembled. This URL provides a spreadsheet and .zip file containing sources supporting the DOJ study, where the average recidivism of sex offenders committing new sex crimes since 1983 is approximately 9 percent, compared to the 42 percent average recidivism rate for all felony offenders committing any new felony offense.

    According to the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) of the United States Department of Justice, [4] in New York State the recidivism rate for sex offenders has been shown to be lower than any other crime except murder. Another report from the OJP which studied the recidivism of prisoners released in 1994 in 15 states (accounting for two-thirds of all prisoners released in the United States that year) [5] reached the same conclusion.

    I apologize for resorting to Wikipedia. But if you are interested there are links to government sources for your consideration at the bottom of the article.

  • stillin

    Nice work, dog. It seems like there's a report to serve every purpose.

  • DogGone

    Stillin, it is crazy how much data they collect. That one big US study which followed all released convicts included over 300,000 people. These aren't just anamolies.

    I was able to find the new link for the Public Safety Canada paper: Now this paper does not include some of the more recent studies noted in the Wikipedia article, but it is still a good read.

    Most sexual offenders do not re-offend sexually over time. This may be the most important finding of this study as this finding is contrary to some strongly held beliefs. After 15 years, 73% of sexual offenders had not been charged with, or convicted of, another sexual offence. The sample was sufficiently large that very strong contradictory evidence is necessary to substantially change these recidivism estimates. Other studies have found similar results. Hanson and Bussière's (1998) quantitative review of recidivism studies found an average recidivism rate of 13.4% after a follow-up period of 4-5 years (n = 23,393). In a recent U.S. study of 9,691 sex offenders, the sexual recidivism rate was only 5.3% after three years (Langan, Schmitt, & Durose, 2003).

    What I found most interesting was the difference in the rates for different abuser profiles. It was dramatic and changed a few myths I had in my head. Age is a factor in the rates of reoffence - older offenders are less likely to reoffend than younger offenders. Offenders of boys more likely than girls. Offenders who targetted someone outside the family more likely than an incestuous offender.

  • stillin

    You realize that if you don't support the idea that All pedos are JWs. And they will repeat their crimes, you will be wolf-packed here?

  • DogGone

    Ha ha. Do I ever. It's a touchy subject. I once suggested that just because you had pedophile attractions it didn't make you a monster (though professional help was in order). I was accused of advocating child abuse and promptly deleted my post.

  • Truth seeker 674
    Truth seeker 674

    Stillin I wish you the best, but I think you and your familly should get some professional help. I mean that and I'm not being judgemental. Best wishes.

  • stillin

    Thanks truth seeker. I could use some professional help. There's an electrical problem in one of my company trucks that's driving me nuts! No, really, what's my problem? I'm sure a "pro" would find something that would take a good many sessions to fix.

  • *lost*

    Stillin - I take offence at your remark about supportung the idea that all paedo's are jw.?? I don't think that.

    I don't support that idea, or think it for one minute.

    It is like saying all paedo's are catholic, or jewish.? isn't that sterotyping ?

    It has nothing to do with religion, whether or not one is a paedo. What organised religion has done though, has offered a veritable trough for these animalistic people to freely feed from. e.g the whole institution of the RCC and it's schools and laundries and slave labaour, including children and selling babies and kids into slave labour.

    Granted jw's have had not to suffer a brutal, violent, barbaric history, as much as the other religious histories.

    Never mind whether or not they will, or might reoffend, they should never be allowed that chance. they should recive the death peanlty, end of problem. much cheaper option too.

Share this