I've seen people say something along the lines that the authorities would like to/have been trying to subpoena (members of) the GB (in CSA cases). My question is: why don't they? If the GB are issuing orders to cover up evidence in CSA cases, and otherwise interfere in justice being served in those cases, then they are accessories before (and after) the fact, and theoretically can be arrested and charged as such. The WT bunker can't keep out police with proper arrest warrants.
Governing Body Culpability
by NotFormer 11 Replies latest watchtower scandals
-
-
Biahi
Justice moves slowly…🤷♀️
-
TonusOH
I suppose they need a case where they can establish the involvement of one or more specific GB members, though they can also do what the royal commission in Australia did, which was to ask questions regarding policy in order to determine if protocol had been followed by elders in the cases they were investigating. But that commission is not the same as a criminal investigation.
It might also be that, lacking a specific link to a specific case, prosecutors in the USA might be hesitant to involve the leaders of a church in an investigation in an attempt to demonstrate a broader problem. I am sure that many other church leaders would enjoy watching GB members squirm, but they would also realize that if the WTS can be treated like this, so can they. They would protest the treatment of the GB on general principle.
I do think that the USA should have investigations like the ones in the UK and Australia. But, again, there would likely be a lot of pushback against the idea, since the USA is still very religious.
-
Vidiot
Personally, I suspect most mainstream churches would be happy to offer up the WTS for the legal system to make an example of.
-
markweatherill
This is arguably why Jehovah's organisation is such a tangle of legal entities.
Jesus: Be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves
Watchtower: We need to be as slippery as eels.Jesus: There is nothing hidden that will not be revealed
Watchtower: We need to buy a shredder. A cross-cut one. -
ScenicViewer
...the USA is still very religious.
Yes it is, and WAY too much is allowed under the heading of "Freedom of Religion."
-
ThomasMore
Notformer - so far the legal system has been reticent to take on WTC over CSA interference.
The current climate could change but it has to be a grass roots movement, not a flash in the pan “woke” moment. Protecting children requires fortitude that the current state of politics lacks entirely.
-
Lee Marsh
In the US the Constitution includes the Freedom Of Religion. This makes it very hard for the law to intervene in these cases. The religion claims they follow the Bible and therefore the law can’t interfere. The wants to protect children and the religion says they do.
setting precedent in law takes a lot of time and money. And a lot of pressure especially when you are rubbing noses with the constitution
-
NotFormer
Freedom of religion wouldn't protect someone from being prosecuted for human sacrifice. Covering up CSA is still a criminal act that shouldn't be able to hide behind the 1st amendment. What is needed is for attorneys general to start looking behind the "veil" of religious freedom. A company formed to break a contract would have the corporate veil lifted or pierced by the court. I suggested in another thread that perhaps there needs to be a similar principle in criminal cases where the perpetrators are hiding behind the right to practice their religion.
But you're right, Lee, this is about establishing precedent, and we (and the current GB) may be all dead before any real strides are made in this area.
-
Lee Marsh
One of the big, I mean really big problems that everyone seems to be missing is that this privileged communication between an elder (clergy) and a penitent (sinner) is that is is between the clergy and the person who did something wrong.
I have never read anywhere that it includes a child asking for help because they were abused. The child has not sinned although he or she may be told they have. The child did not commit a crime although he or she may be blamed.
The child is begging for help.
On that basis alone the whole issue of privilege should evaporate. But it doesn't. The WTS does not want it to disappear. They want the courts to believe that ALL communication between a congregation member and a leader of the congregation should be privileged.
The WTS has JWs so tied up in fear of the outside authorities that they don't ask the elders to call the police or help them do it or be with them when they do it. Instead elders decide to start and finish their own "investigation". By then the child is often returned to the situation they are trying to get help for. Or they are forced to confront their abuser. Any evidence disappears. Stories get changed. The child is more fearful of the abusers, the elders AND the authorities that nothing gets done. BTW, it is extremely likely in these cases that the child will recant, because they think no one believes them, they will be blamed, and things will be worse than they were before. The child has no way of knowing that the police and social workers really can make a difference for the benefit of the child.
As more countries around the world condemn the WTS policies, the more pressure the WTS will be to change things in the US. Pressure not from JWs but from outsiders who become more aware of the problem.