I believe the biggest problem with their policy is that it doesn’t acknowledge that Child molestation is a CRIME and ought to be ALWAYS treated as such whether or not mandatory reporting exists.
The Policies the WTS institute generally are very legalistic & protective of the Organization & show little concern, protection, compassion or support for the injured party or other potential victims.
Now the policy is to report it to the authorities where that's the law and to make sure the parents know that there will be NO REPERCUSSIONS towards them for going to the police.
They are masters of Double Talk & as long term Witnesses; we became accustomed to knowing what was really meant when something was publicly stated from the platform or in the Watchtower.
This organization has always pushed that when matters arise between members, those matters were to be handled within the congregation. Instead of promoting parents to first take the matter to the Authorities, they want congregation Elders to investigate the issue (although they've no formal training in Crime Investigation, Molestation, Psychology or Emotional Support) before going any further. The parent is then told that there is NO REPERCUSSIONS if they themselves wish to take the matter to Authorities. This in itself is a negative statement as it's highlighting a negative aspect (a penalty) instead of promoting a positive (support and assistance). This statement also does not address the Elders position on going to the Authorities.
Although there may not be 'Official Repercussions', there are always the informal penalties for minor infractions against the Organization (I think Whistle Blowing would be considered more than minor), enforced through-out the congregation, following the Whistle Blower to another Congregation, should they relocate.
Also, I've heard individual elders from states that don't have mandatory reporting requirements say they would "drop a dime in a heartbeat" on a child molestor even though the law and the Borg don't require it in those states.
In a hypothetical situation, some Elders might believe that they would do things in certain way. If a real situation arises and they're backed into a corner, they may find that holding the 'company line' is the route they end up taking as they might perceive that to be the safest, easiest & most consistent course of action. Even if they push to go contrary to the remaining Elder body & the Society, they will be heavily ostracized & most likely be removed from their position as Elder.
The two-witness rule. Well, they've humbly responded on this one as well.
now if a molestor is accused by two kids for two separate events, that passes the two-witness rule
Unfortunately, just because having single witnesses to two separate events CAN fulfill the two witness rule, does not always mean that it will. It can depend on who the 2 witnesses are. Are children's accusation treated as reliable or is the first instinct of the Elders to think that the child is lying and to drop the issue? If one of the abused was a child of a J.Witness and the other was a 'worldly' child, would this count as 2 witnesses? Will the 'worldly' event actually be considered an event?
I understand that when the elders get a report of an abuse with a single witness to the event (the abused party); they are to query the accused as to the truthfulness of the accusation. If the accused denies the allegation, the matter is to be treated as hearsay & is considered as never happening. The Police are not necessarily notified and the accuser is told to forgive the accused & drop the issue as pursuing the matter further by the accuser would be treated as SLANDERING the accused and ‘Causing Divisions’ within the congregation, resulting in possible penalties to the accuser. Records are not necessarily kept, so that subsequent reports pertaining to the same accused could potentially again be treated as a 1st offence.
Some families whose child was abused may not necessarily come forward to the elders or anyone else, or if they do, the matter might be reported years after the molestation(s) occurred. Even if the Elders ‘investigating’ the original allegation believe the accusation but can't ‘prove’ the matter due to lack of an initial 2nd witness, if no written records are available, these same elders would have to be still active & in a similar capacity of congregation responsibility, going from memory years later when the 2nd witness comes forward. To satisfy the two witness rule, the initial accuser would also need to be available and willing to 'testify' in order for the Elders to move forward.
In both these scenarios, the potential for a molester to molest many children exists after the initial accusation as there is usually no penalty imposed if denied. Even if a 2nd witness comes forward, the 2 witness rule might still not apply. Since these accusations are to be kept secret, any potential 2nd witness that is feeling intimidated, guilty, confused or embarrassed, may be reluctant to come forward. They may feel that they are alone in their situation and don’t wish to bring ‘reproach on Jehovah’s name’. If they knew that they were not alone, they might feel less reluctant to come forward.
A question that I have considered many times is that even if a good written Policy on these matters exists, would it really be followed in all cases? The fact that Elders are instructed to first call ‘Legal’ appears that each case might have a ‘unique solution’ applied which may or may not follow any written policy.
Incognito
