oh my does this even deserve a response?
@djeggnog
@Lady Lee:
But the WTS is pretty good at changing the rules when it suits them.
I don't agree with you. I'd also say that you have a beef against Jehovah's Witnesses that prevents you from being precise. This is one of those times when what you are articulating here, which I would assume to be true, should be both precise and specific. We don't change rules at our own pleasure. I never do this. This is a lie.
That is odd. I thought all JWs knew they don't have a clergy class. But here is a perfect example of them demanding that their clergy class privilege be accepted. If you don't have one then how can you insist that you do have one? Either the elders are clergy or they aren't.
So whenever a victim discloses abuse they should by all legal reason contact the authorities to protect the child.
What is does "all legal reason" mean? Did you make this up or does this expression actually have a meaning?
"Legal reason" really? You don't get that. if you reason things out legally - think about it. It is a crime. then reasonably you should report it
Elders are to call Bethel first to find out if they should report the abuse accusation. Bethel legal will then let them know if they should report. In the US it seems to depend on what state this happens in.
And you know this how?
There are plenty of ex-elders and even active elders here that have told us the procedure. All you need to do is read what they have said. There is a pretty long list of threads in the Best of section of the board - first page has the list for sexual abuse.
We know from many experiences that if the accused is not a Witness or associated with the Witnesses they will be told to report. But if the accused is a JW they will most likely not tell them to report.
I do believe that there was a time when Jehovah's Witnesses in the local congregation would investigate the circumstances surrounding the report, and then, based on the results of their investigation, would report (i.e., child abuse, spousal abuse, extortion, other criminal acts that might be taking place) to the authorities, but those days have ended. I want to add here though that this distinction you make is ridiculous and isn't true. It may have been true in the cases that you have personally observed, but unless you have personal knowledge of such cases, they are unverified accounts that may or may not have involved an unbaptized child, but whether the child involved in child abuse matters may be that of one of Jehovah's Witnesses or the child of a non-Witnesses is incredible, pure fiction on your part.
Out of the many many many experiences here I think I have only seen one where the person was told to go to the police.
What do you mean by "Based on the results of their investigation"? Their investigation is a crock. Once the accused says he (or she) didn't do it the case is closed because the victim doesn't have a couple of witnesses to the abuse. So if they can't find any proof why on earth would they tell them to go to the police or report it themselves. They don't think it happened!
Umm you need to read a bit more carefully. I never said anything about the status of the victim. I said "if the accused is a JW"There is a huge difference to how they will treat the issue when the accused has nothing to do with the Witnesses. Reporting a non-JW for sexual abuse brings no shame on God's name i' there is no reason not to report. Please read more carefully.
Now the next piece of this goes like this:
The victim or family will be told they can go to the authorities if they are told that much.
This isn't true. In such cases, the families of alleged victims of child abuse are asked if they are comfortable about reporting the alleged abuse themselves, especially since the accused abuser may be a family member living in the household (e.g., a father or a sibling), and, if not, we will report the abuse on their behalf.
When someone comes here and posts that this is what happened I will believe it but not until then. When a hundred people have posted here that this is NOT what happened I will believe that.
But they will also be told they have a responsibility to:
- not bring shame on Jehovah's name or on the Cong
- they should not do anything that would cause divisions where people would have to make a choice between the accused and the victim
- they should deal with this within the Cong by the elders by following the Bible rules
- confront the accused - if that doesn't work
- take 1 or 2 people as witnesses to the confrontation
- take the issue to the elders
How will a child's being sexually or physically abused by someone associated with the local congregation, whether the accused individual is a baptized Witness or is unbaptized, bring shame on Jehovah's name or on the congregation? Please explain that one to me. Who even thinks like this, but someone with an active imagination as to what might be taking place behind-the-scenes in such cases, someone that is a central depository for gossip, both true and false? As to any victim of abuse of any kind not making a choice between himself or herself and the accused, if someone, a brother, in one family should be accused of sexually abusing a child in another family, this report is one where criminal behavior may have taken place, so divisions between and among various families acquainted with or friendly to the accused and the victim will accordingly be made, which shouldn't be a surprise to anyone!
Really!!Things like this don't happen in God's clean organization. At least that is what they want people to believe. Accusing a JW of sexual abuse would bring shame on the cong and on God's name simply because the accused is a JW. What part of that don't you understand?
Who thinks like this? Every single JW who is not or has never been an elder. The elders know better because they hear the stories. Again go read the Best of -- regarding sexual abuse. Plenty of elders in there sharing their experience in dealing with these cases in the cong.
I have 2 stories to tell you that you might but probably won't find interesting and very telling.
When I was 11 yrs old I went to the police station and reported my father for sexual abuse. I had never heard of the JWs and neither had he. I told my story and he was arrested. The police found my mother who was living in another city and she came to get me.
One yr later. My grandmother, my 3 uncles and my aunt who was just one yr older than me were all living with my mother and her common-law husband. My grandmother uncles and aunt were all baptized and my mother and her boyfriend were studying with the JW and had started going to meetings. Also in the family were my 3 brothers and my sister. So all 12 of us were living in the same place and all going to meetings.
My step-father (for want of a better word) was caught sexually abusing my 12 yr old aunt. She was baptized - he was not. An elder was called and he decided that it would not be reported to the police. My aunt was sent to live somewhere else - away from her mother and brothers. Three months later she committed suicide. We had both talked about suicide as a way out of the abuse. I know how she felt to be separated from her family since I had been separated from my mother for almost 3 years during the abuse by my father. It doesn't surprise me that she decided to commit suicide. BTW I am the only one of the people who were living in that house that believes she committed suicide. The thought is too painful for everyone else. They might have to accept some responsibility for her death.
Shortly after this my step-father was caught sexually abusing me. Same elder came in. Same result. He was kept in the home and I was sent to foster care for another 3 years away from my mother. The abuse was never reported to the police. He was never arrested. Nothing
And he is in the house with another girl - my 3 yr old sister. He disappeared this time. It was later discovered he moved to the US and married a woman with ---- 3 daughters and they started taking in foster kids.
So let's see -- no connection to JWs and the abuse is reported to the police. Later a connection not once, not twice but three times and it was never reported.
I don't need to rely on gossip. My family alone has enough stories to tell. Oh I spent the next 20 years seriously depressed because I never got the counseling I needed. And my sister? She didn't get the counseling either. She turned to drugs and alcohol to drown out the memories and finally succeeding in committing suicide after several attempts. Like I said I don't need gossip.
Like I said above, the elders are going to ask the family of the alleged victim if they feel comfortable about reporting the alleged abuse themselves, and if they would prefer not to do so, then the elders will do so, period. The kinds of things with which we deal in the local congregation has to do with the spirituality of the parties involved, so no matter what the superior authorities might require the accused and his or her victims to do, we are going to investigate the facts of the report made, and if at least two witnesses confirm the report, the matter is established in our minds, regardless of what police and judges do. If we learn that the alleged abuse of a child in this case was reported by another child in a different case, then where, in both cases, the same allegations involving sexual abuse are made against the same individual, but by different children, this, too, will establish the matter.
And like I said out of all the stories here there has only been one person who said the elders told her to go to the police. I have yet to hear where the elders will do the reporting for the family. The problem is that if the accused doesn't admit it the elders don't think there is a crime to report. "if at least two witnesses confirm the report" really. Someone will start touching a child in front of other people??? That is too stupid to believe. And as for the situation where another child reports the same thing by the same individual -- well if they don't think anything happened in the first case why would they think it happened in the second case. perhaps if the police had been allowed to investigate the first case there wouldn't have been a second or third case to deal with. Elders have no business interviewing witnesses of a crime. Would they start interviewing victims of a murder while the murder investigation was going on? They need to butt out of these cases and deal with the issues after the case has been reported and it has been thoroughly investigated by the police. If the police find the required evidence then they have reason to deal with the accused regardless of what he says. (or she)
Once it goes to the elders it works like this:The elders will listen to the accused and the victim separately and then together. The victim will have to sit in front of the abuser and 3 elders and explain in detail what was done without their parents being in the room
- if the accused denies it the victim will be expected to have 2 or 3 witnesses to the abuse - like abusers are going to do it while a couple of people sit and watch
- if she (or he) doesn't have the required witnesses it comes down to the child's word against tan adult. Since it is assumed children lie or take things out of context or misunderstand the elders will most likely say there is no proof and it ends there
- the victim will then be told they cannot mention this to anyone in the cong including other family members so they don't
- slander the accused
- cause divisions
- Case closed.
What happens next depends upon the situation and the decision of the judicial committee that will ultimately decide the matter.
None of what you wrote here is even close to being true. Only one elder will interview the child, and not alone, but with the child's parent or adult guardian present. Only with the permission of the parent might the accused and the child victim be in the same room at the same time, and since no two children are alike, a 14-, 15- or 16-year-old might be put in a position to confront his or her accuser with the parents of that child and only one elder present, and I suppose a 12-year-old child might be put into such a position if his or her parents consent to it, but the elders may not want to put a 12-year-old into this position. In most cases, and contrary to what you write here, child victims do not confront their alleged abusers, usually because the parents do not consent to it or the elder involved does not think it to be a good idea, but they will interview the child separately in one place for a few minutes' time over a week or so while interviewing the alleged abuser in another place over that same week.
See above. I've been through it. My family has been through it. Go reads in the Best of thread on sexual abuse. Plenty of stories there to show it happens exactly as I describe.
As you can see the path is convoluted and there is little chance of a child getting any real help
The only thing "convoluted" here are the things you have said here. You have never been an elder, but you seem to be chock full of opinions, aren't you, @Lady Lee?
Yes I am but they are opinions based on experience
Elders are not policemen and no one ought to think them to be able to step in for law enforcement in any criminal matter. Many of them are not lawyers, so they are not qualified to dispense legal advice to anyone. The ethically correct response if a minor tells you someone is molesting him/her, is to ask them if they have informed their parents or guardians, those that have the primary responsibility for the child's well-being, as to the abuse to which they have become victims, and if they haven't done so, then inform the child's parents. The child may not want you to do so, but whether you are an adult confidant or a child confidant, it is not the place of anyone, but the child's parent or adult guardian to handle the matter. Your ethical responsibility is discharged once you have informed the child's parents of the crime. It is up the child's parents do carry out their ethical responsibilities toward their own child, not yours.
No they aren't the police which is why they need to get out of the way and let the authorities do their job without the elders contaminating the evidence or coaching the victims or accused. AHA Now you are saying it is the parents who should report and only the parents. What if they are the abusers? What if they are too ashamed to do anything? What if they think it will bring shame on the cong or God if they report a JW for sexual abuse? An elder's ethical responsibility is to inform the parents , if they are not the abusers and then call the police. Period. They don't have to and should never sit around and wait for someone else to do it.
If one of the child's parents or guardians is the one about whom you are informed has been involved in sexually abusing the child, then your responsibility is to report the crime to the police, so that you do not become an accessory after-the-fact by being sworn to secrecy by the spouse of the abuser. Your ethical responsibility is discharged once you have informed the authorities of the crime.
ethical? no LEGAL responsibility since the elders want to claim clergy privilege in this matter which doesn't apply when it is the victim disclosing the abuse.
I did this for one reason. So others will know because I doubt djeggnog will get it
