The handling of child abuse allegations
In addition the society should establish an independent contact point, as many churches have done
That's too sensible an idea - it will never catch on.
For all those (probably including me) who are advocating that the police should be called in all circumstances are we ok with the thought that in some cases this may ride roughshod over the rights of the victim?
Interesting choice for scenarios, very odd choices. These seem a bit leading
I made those choices because some of them need to consider what the victim actually wants to happen as well as the difficult choices they bring with regard to safeguarding.
What needs to happen with straightforward cases of abuse of a small child is just that, straightforward. In a procedural sense if not a human one.
Even those who say the police should be called regardless of what the victim wants haven't broached the sticky subject of what (if anything) the elders should do to safeguard the other children once the police have no further actioned the case.
Life is too short:
I am not going to get into a debate with you. I have no idea who Landy is, I am not a WT lawyer or work for Watchtower in any way. I am not illiterate and I do know what NPR and PSB are, btw Trey Bundy produced it for PRX, not NPR. In fact the only times my radio is not on NPR is when my stations plays APHC, I dislike that program so much. I listened to the report that Trey Bundy produced, and he did provide an opportunity to have Watchtower respond to him and did what a legitimate journalist is supposed to do.
I listened to the report that Trey Bundy produced, and he did provide an opportunity to have Watchtower respond to him and did what a legitimate journalist is supposed to do. I think he did do as fair of a report that he could do under the circumstances. Because Watchtower did not agree to be interviewed all he could do is rely on Zalkin and his clients in reporting this matter, which of course is bias, that is just nature. I couldn't say that Bundy could have done anything differently under the circumstances, because he could only report from one side of things.
Though I have seen many things on here which also shows that people don't like to get the whole story. I have seen statements where they use JW Survey as a primary source. First of all most of their information is based on what they read from other sources and will spin it the way that they want to. Second most of their articles is commentary and not journalism. Why do I bring this up, is that you have to understand what to read and where to read things. Primary sources are things that have no or little spin and commentary in it. Those are reports by government agencies like the ARC, decisions by courts or statements by police. Life is too short, have you read any primary sources on this matter? Have you read the full ARC report or the Conti decision or the Lopez decision? Or are you just relying on what other people tell you, of what is in it.
If it is announced upfront that all accusation of child abuse will be immediately reported to the police, you do not violate anyones right.
Why would anyone stand around wondering if the police should be called when a child has been victimized?
When they're not children any more?
RO this is the one and only time I will stoop to lower myself to respond to you.
Yes I have read everything that you have referred to.
You are very biased and externally pro WT. Nothing that I or anyone will, say will ever convince that your beloved WT is in anyway wrong even if it is black and white right in front of you.. It does no good to argue with a brick.
Life is to short:
You are right I am probably biased, again that is human nature, we are all biased one way or another, it is recognizing those biases and trying to work on them that is key. If you have read those primary sources, then that is very good. I hope you recognize that it is not a black and white issue. There is a severe number of complex issues that have to be taken into account.
Also just because you say you are not a WT attorney means nothing.
I was at Bethel and had the unfortunate ecpreance of being around a WT attorney, he was rude offensive and argumentative. At the time it really bothered me as I was a true believer and could not grasp how such a rude person was allowed in Bethel even with the fact he was being used.
Now I get it. Spiritual warfare, he could look you right in the eye and lie. You and Landy come off just like that attorney.
So just because you say you are not there means nothing.
Well life too short. I can't prove a negative so if you think that I am a WT lawyer that is your right. I am not a liar and telling you the truth.
But while you were reading those primary sources did you not see that it is not this easy fix that some people keep on thinking or claiming it is. There are laws involved that do have to be changed.
It's obvious that the WTBTS needs to go much further. They should suspend the Two Witness rule because it is not a responsible rule for children. Doesn't matter that Jesus preached the two witness rule....it simply can't be applied to children who were abused. In fact he said the opposite "Do not hinder the children....let them come to me"
Not reporting the abuse means that if this crime is committed by a parent, relative a close family friend or a JW who is in good standing............. there opportunity to continue the abuse can be or The abuser has has access to their victim and an ongoing opportunity.
I've used the word crime not sin. Sin's are a trademark of religion. But when a sin creates a victim like a sexually abused child........... it becomes a crime. It doesn't matter if the fondling didn't cause pain or even discomfort..... just as it doesn't matter if you encourage a minor to drink beer, smoke dope, shop lift etc.
Child endangerment is a crime.
Repenting is also not valid........ there can be no repenting without punishment.
Getting DF is not a punishment for a pedophile......... it just allows the pedophile to continue to sexually abuse children in whatever community that person lives in.
These child sex abusers must be investigated by the police and dealt with by the courts. The reason this must be done is to clear up who was the victim and who the abuser. To shed public light on the offender. To pave the way for longer prison sentences.
When it comes to crime and protecting the greater community, the congregation saying "SO and SO is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses" doesn't cut it any longer.
The WT policy failed, the sweeping the 'sin' under rug doesn't work ...the dirt gets out.
The WTBT$ will be settling out of..... or in court..... with their victims and their families....... until they go broke.