2 witness rule
The whole issue gets convoluted. The 2 witness rule isn't the problem as much as the fact that unqualified people are handling criminal matters. That is the main problem as I see it. Why are elders handling crimes against children in the first place? Why do parents go to them first? Why isn't the policy of the JWs as simple as report it to the proper authorities (hint: that's not the eldurrs)? They have no business handling it in the first place.
Now, since they do, and since they set themselves on high as the judge and jury of the congregation, then the two witness rule allows horrible things to go unpunished and allows predators to do what they do even longer. You'd think an almighty god that can cause the rocks to cry out with his message could do so in defense of the most vulnerable among us. That's just more evidence that god is a fairy tale. He can be found helping to protect his loyal witnesses across waters where predators roam so they can get to a meeting while children are raped because, of course, meeting attendance is vital. Disgusting.
If the two witness rule is used only for internal discipline I feel it is their right to do that. There is a lot of discussion on this forum and others about how DFing is, so yes there should be a high standard to DF someone. It should be more than just one person who saw someone do something no matter what, because there are false accusations for everything, and yes even for child abuse. If you look at the Irish article that was posted just a few weeks ago there was a case where the authorities couldn't bring charges against the person suspected fo child abuse because there was no corroborating evidence and the only other witness recanted their statement.
Second is in most civilized societies the purpose of prison is not just to punish someone but to keep the community safe and to try and get the person to become rehabilitated. That is why they are called correctional facilities because the hope is to correct someone's attitude and actions. Those who commit child abuse are let out into society and they should be given a right to try and live a normal life. They aren't allowed to work in professions that allow them easy access to those that are vulnerable, but that doesn't mean that they have forfeited their right to live as a human forever. Once they have completed the mandated time they should be allowed to continue on in their life and that includes joining voluntary associations.
For those who are so distraught about WTS or ANY religious group failing to report cases of abuse, have you investigated whether your State (assuming USA) requires mandatory reporting of these incidents by Clergy?
If your State does not have mandatory reporting laws, FIX IT. Write your Governor and State Representatives.
How dangerous to formulate rules based on some ancient Scribbling.
Pedophlia is not just any other crime like stealing a car etc. What kind of idiot thinks that pedophiles are like "oopsy I sexually molested a child, oh well, I've learned my lesson now so I'll just go join a community group that has young families and kids, I'm sure I'll be fine I won't have the urge again, I'm cured now right?" Oh I know a WT apologist or a pedophile sympathizer or a lawyer for a pedophile.
Either willful ignorance as to the nature of pedophilia or someone whose job it is to twist words, play semantics and cry "rights of corporations, orgs and groups" in order to defend them. I spose defending WT is dirty job and someone's gotta do it.
Then if you don't think that paedophiles cannot be changed then you need to lobby lawmakers to change the law. There has to be a reason why legislatures don't put a mandatory minimum sentence of life on paedophiles, it may not be a good reason but that is what legislatures have decided.
So, if the 2 witness rule is the "standard" by which the Society judges things, how would they fare with this:
If someone punched ToMo3 in the face and no second witness observed it, did the punch really take place??
I posted this comment some time back too about the flawed nature of JW reasoning.
If we came across a person on the street who has been hit by a car and is badly injured, disoriented and in pain, would we walk up to them and say "it is your legal right to call the ambulance if you wish - I wont prevent you from doing so". Then walk away?
No two witnesses existed to that incident...so we "cant get involved"...
Or, if we learned that someone committed murder, would we call Bethel to ask the Service dept how to proceed? Or would we just call the police and leave it in their hands? What is the difference with the crime of child abuse?
@John Davis - Do you think that "Jehovah's spirit directed organization" should have higher standards than the "world"? Shouldn't holy spirit (lol) guide the organization on the cutting edge of what is acceptable? Since when is the "world" the moral authority over the cult?
The point is not that child a sexual assaulter should have life in prison it's WT reporting all crime to police and informing members to do the same. If JWs are in car crash they wouldn't tell the elders and let them handle it. It's common sense and common decency to report crime and let authorites do their job. Why is the concept of common decency for a group proclaiming to be God's bestie so difficult for you to comprehemd JD. It's not about law with JWs it's about "warm christiam love."