Mandatory reporting and misprision

by Xanthippe 21 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  Xanthippe

  Day 7 of the Australian Royal Commission has chair Justice Peter McClellan raising the point that I have been wondering about all along, which is, how can these elders not report child abuse to the authorities especially when a full confession has taken place?

  Justice McClellan asked Toole, the WTS's lawyer, if he is aware that there is a difference between an organisation being required to have mandatory reporting of child abuse to the authorities and misprision which is the concealment of a felony, itself a criminal offence?

  Toole says he is aware of it now but he wasn't before! I find this incomprehensible. Surely a lawyer knows that concealing a crime is in itself a crime? All along I, as a person unfamiliar with the intricacies of criminal law, have nevertheless been thinking surely they are committing offences by concealing these crimes of child abuse.

  The counsel for BCB and chair McClellan have just pointed out before the Commision adjourned that individuals all do have this obligation under Australian law aside from organisational mandatory reporting. I wonder now what will be the fallout from this?
• 

  Axelspeed

  I find this interesting as well given their requirement for fellow believers to always report serious sin to the elders or bear the consequences themselves (Leviticus 5:1). Couple this with their insistence that they that they take so seriously the principle of "being in subjection to the superior authorities" as god's agent in punishing law-breakers (Romans 13:1,2), and it defies logic and the common sensibilities of most people and seems at best criminally negligent that they are not more-forthcoming and proactive in going to the authorities.

  Can you imagine the consequences if a publisher parsed out when he would and would not report porniea to the elders?
• 

  OrphanCrow

  Xanthippie: Toole says he is aware of it now but he wasn't before! I find this incomprehensible. Surely a lawyer knows that concealing a crime is in itself a crime? All along I, as a person unfamiliar with the intricacies of criminal law, have nevertheless been thinking surely they are committing offences by concealing these crimes of child abuse.
  The counsel for BCB and chair McClellan have just pointed out before the Commision adjourned that individuals all do have this obligation under Australian law aside from organisational mandatory reporting. I wonder now what will be the fallout from this?

  I was astounded by Toole's lack of legal knowledge as well. The Commission is making a critical point. It is one thing to abide by mandatory reporting laws and quite another to conceal known crime.

  Mandatory reporting pre-supposes that guilt has not been established, or even that a crime has been committed. It is mandatory to report allegations of abuse. The JWs do not do even that. They investigate and collect all those intimate detils about minor sex, first. And then they deal with the crime. Once they have established guilt, they still don't report the crime. This falls well outside the parameters of the mandatory reporting laws and it covers states that do not have mandatory reporting laws for child sex abuse. It is mandatory to report all crimes everywhere.

  The JW judicial system need a complete overhaul. The WTS lawyers have admitted to their ignorance and lack of competency right in their own testimony. They should not be in charge of internal investigations.
• 

  Sofia Lose

  Mandatory reporting required. Doubt it. It would mean requiring mandatory reporting, such as confession secrets in other faiths. I do not think that will be imposed on the WTBTS. One can only hope.

  SL
• 

  sir82

  The WTS lawyers have admitted to their ignorance and lack of competency right in their own testimony.

  That's really kind of mind-blowing.

  These guys all went to "worldly" universities to get a law degree. They have to know this stuff.

  Can't be ignorance....sounds to me like malpractice. Should JW lawyers be disbarred?
  
• 

  Axelspeed

  It is mandatory to report allegations of abuse. The JWs do not do even that. They investigate and collect all those intimate detils about minor sex, first. And then they deal with the crime.
  

  Very good point.
  
• 

  Oubliette

  Here's the irony that the RC has duly noted:

  All JWs are in effect mandated to report any wrongdoing to the elders,

  But the elders don't report even criminal activity to the police even when it is mandated.

  Note point #69 from the Opening Address:
  

  #69. Evidence will be put before the Royal Commission that of the 1,006 alleged perpetrators of child sexual abuse identified by the Jehovah’s Witness Church since 1950, not one was reported by the Church to secular authorities. This suggests that it is the practice of the Jehovah’s Witness Church to retain information regarding child sexual abuse offences but not to report allegations of child sexual abuse to the police or other relevant authorities.- [Emphasis and highlighting added]
• 

  Oubliette

  [double post]
  
• 

  Axelspeed

  double post
• 

  OrphanCrow

  sir82: These guys all went to "worldly" universities to get a law degree. They have to know this stuff.
  Can't be ignorance....sounds to me like malpractice. Should JW lawyers be disbarred?

  Well, I think that the main duty of a WT lawyer is to provide a hedge of confidentiality around the WT financial concerns and such. They are supposed to be the protective barrier - I don't think their actual legal knowledge is all that valuable unless it comes to corporate law. That is the area that Toole claims he conducts his practice in. Well, then, maybe he should stop giving advice on criminal cases.

  Privacy laws, confidentiality, and freedom of religion have all been twisted around to have the WT interpetation on those concepts. The WT legal department is no different than their writing department - the cult thinking goes right to the top and permeates all levels of the corporation. We can't expect someone who still beieves in the WT brand of biblical interpetation to have a very good grasp of secular law as it relates to human rights abuses. Unless, of course, it is their rights that they perceive are being abused.