Unless Campos was convicted, these are allegations. Settlement does not equate liability. Until the laws change, requiring religions to break confessional privilege for pedophile confessions, religion does not have a legal duty in these cases. It is clear, however, that this ancient rule is now undergoing considerable modification or it may be dropped altogether.
What about moral duty, though? I expect any organization, remotely favored by God or the fates, too have higher standards than the law. The scriptures the JWs rely on is NOT express. It is a very subjective interpretation that is not necessary for any essential WT doctrine.
I wonder why, in the face of more and more settlements, the WT clings to the silly rule. Religion is no longer an arm of government. Adult rape and pedophilia crimes no longer require corroboration b/c much proof exists that children do not lie in these areas. Evidentiary techiques do already exist to ferret out troubled children who would lie. Certainly, a case by case evaluation makes much more sense than a blanket rule.
Once the clergy/penitent privilege starts to be breached, however, and the Conti case is so important, I doubt the two witness rule will stand. The very nature of the crime makes it almost impossible there will be witness. I assume the witnesses must be adult men. Convicting someone of a crime wtihout due process is reprehensible but KHs are not part of Caesar's empire.
What is so burdensome or negates any secular duty to merely make an announcement that someone has made allegations against a JW. Such an announcement should be immediately followed by a much longer lecture that the authorites and KH elders are investigating the allegation. It may be impossible to resolve. No facts are proven. A mere allegation is no proof.
The newspaper do so all the time. Note that public officials and the press alway use the word "alleged," so as not to libel or slander or affect judicial outcomes. Legal resolutions are nice but, truly, are not as important as basic moral values.
I wonder if Jehovah's Witnesses realize they are not Jehovah's Witnesses, but independent contractors. The Society is so lawyered up. If they once showed concerned for an alleged victim besides announcing that they have no legal duty, a different situation would emerge. Merely stating that no proof is available yet but IF it happened, a serious breach of God's commandments were involved. IF it happened, concern for the alleged victim should be noted.
This has to do with overreaching and legal protection, not doctrine. The Roman Catholic Church no longer makes such assertions. Only by making the allegation public, as in the case of Sandusky, can one determine if there are legions of other victims remaining silent. Besides, we all know Witness culture, after being told to rely on Jehovah, how many active Witnesses would dare report it to authorities.
Render Caesar;s things to Caesar but God' things to God. Their legal duty is beside the point. A basic moral duty is present.