I am sorry for that if you did not mean that. I was only going off what you said. "I was going to say 'good' but then it hit me what the subject matter is about. And I also remembered the 1006 cases in Australia that went unreported." It made it sound like anything that they are doing now doesn't matter because of the previous allegations.
ARC - Case Study 54 - All Exhibits have been released
You said shame on the watchtower. I said back it up - Watchtower only reports child abuse if state law says so, the few recent examples in Australia that you gave notwithstanding.
That means 1006 known cases of child abuse not reported in Australia (plus unknown cases), multiple cases unreported in the US ... these cases are more than enough data.
So yes, shame on Watchtower.
Also you are correct someone who is convicted of child abuse should be given a long prison sentence. But as pointed out at the ARC the number of those charged that gets a custodial punishment is very low in the whole justice system. So just because someone is charged or convicted doesn't mean they will be going to prison.
So just because someone is charged or convicted doesn't mean they will be going to prison - but they should still be charged.
I don't know whether the low amount of custodial sentences given to child abusers is down to faults in the justice system or not. Perhaps this issue needs exploring.
Perhaps more people convicted of child abuse should be given custodial sentences.
Perhaps there are also issues with the conviction rate.
I agree with you that this does need to be investigated more. Every aspect of this needs to be investigated. Laws and organizations do need to be better. But when they make changes you have to see how those policies are implemented in reality and not just assume it will fail immediately.
@ RO; "And if you listen to the full commission hearing you will see that since the last hearing there were a number of cases that were reported to the authorities if they were required to do so or not"
And if you listened you would have heard the Judge say " yes well that's all well and good that you are reporting while the commission is sitting but we need to know what will happen in 5 years when we are not around "
To my mind he did not sound convinced.
Just sayin, perhaps you should review the vision again and try to remove the JW filter from your glasses.
And maybe you should view it from a more unbiased lense too. It is true for any organization secular or religious. Will complaisance sink in and all the positive steps you made go down the drain. It is not just a Watchtower thing. In Los Angeles county the department of family services had a major problem because their policies were being ignored because those social workers became complaisant and didn't do what they knew was right. It led to a huge number of abused children and even to the death of a number of them.
It will take consistent monitoring and determination by all stake holders but doesn't mean it won't succeed.
Perhaps the judge was concerned about the substance of the policy?
Perhaps you didn't want to raise the Judge's comments.
And yes this is the whole point of the commission's work, to try and ensure that all organisations have robust, workable,transparent and realistic policies for Child Safeguarding.
And you are right I have a bias, having been a victim of JWs dishonest and inhumane teachings.
I also recognise good policy and procedure documents having been a Quality Assurance manager for a number of years.
I currently work in a Catholic Institution (I am atheist) and have participated in their education programs and am subject to their continuously revised policies on the subject under discussion; Child Safegaurding.
I can see the difference.
Well the watchtower policy is either being or will be reviewed by two seperate governing agencies in two different countries with either the same policy which is the two letters and slight differences in policy with safeguarding policy. There will be plenty of time to review.
You say you work for a Catholic organization. I don't mean to put words in your mouth. But is it true that different dioeces have different policies on child abuse? I was reading some American ones and wanted to see how you feel with the policy that if it is determined that the confession was made as determined that the church feels it is a privilege communication then they won't report it. Or how do you feel about a dioeces in Louisiana who fought to the state supreme Court to keep what a victim said to a priest even though she waived priest privilege because the church feels they own the privilege and not the communicant. I know people will say that I am destraute g and pointing it at Catholics but you opened the door by saying you are an expert at least for the Catholic organization you work for and you are comparing watchtower and Catholics.
Oh, now I see.
I never claimed to be an expert on any matter.
I will try and keep it simple.
Historically many organisations have a terrible record for child abuse.
All are equally reprehensible.
I have some experience and education which goes to writing policies and procedure.
The policy I am subject to in a Catholic Institution is in my opinion well formulated. It does not go to confessional issues.
In my opinion the policy presented to the ARC by Watchtower was poor.
I think the Commission was less than well pleased with Watchtower, perhaps for similar reasons as mine.
I believe the Catholics and a number of others also had a hard time at the Commission.
And thank you for you concern at my having been dealt with in a dishonest and inhumane manner by watchtower.
This is a board primarily concerned with matters JW.