Candace Conti Trial and the Realm of Confidentiality

by DNCall 10 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  DNCall

  Like soft+gentle, I just finished reading the trial transcript. During the process of digesting what I read, I was reminded of a concept that I learned, ironically, during a phone conversation with an elder in the Service Department. I don’t remember what the issue was that I was calling about but I do remember him mentioning the concept of a "realm of confidentiality." Essentially, it’s the idea that there are those who qualify to be included this realm. Why would parents not be included? By the Awake! magazine’s own words, parents are the “first line of defense” against child abuse. Isn’t it common sense that you would include parents? I was struck by how the judge seemed to base his rulings, instructions and interpretations on common sense, at times citing to common law.

  For me, at least, the concept of a realm of confidentiality helped me prioritize the complex and sophisticated arguments and issues in this case. I hope it may help others.
• 

  soft+gentle

  DNCall, yes i noticed the judge's reference to common law and I got the impression that one application he made of this was to the period when mandatory reporting did not include religions as yet but that common law did. The judge was discussing these points in chambers with all three lawyers as to what should be allowed from depositions and what disallowed. I must go back and check as I am a little hazy about this whole subject and how it impacts to what extent the elders and Service department failed to take reasonable steps to protect Candace.

  Did you notice that both the judge and Mr Simons were aware of treading in new territory. On one of the days, during a discussion of what instructions needed to be given to the jury a defence lawyer even mentioned what appellate lawyers want to know. I think this was during a discussion of whether or not the jury needed to be told to assess whether a duty of care applies in the case. I'll check where and when as I have not made many notes as yet. (okay found it. Day seven pages 45 and 46)
• 

  soft+gentle

  making a correction to this para from my post above

  Did you notice that both the judge and Mr Simons were aware of treading in new territory. On one of the days, during a discussion of what instructions needed to be given to the jury a defence lawyer even mentioned what appellate lawyers want to know. I think this was during a discussion of whether or not the jury needed to be told to assess whether a duty of care applies in the case. I'll check where and when as I have not made many notes as yet. (okay found it. Day seven pages 45 and 46)

  to read

  Did you notice that both the judge and Mr Simons were aware of treading in new territory. On one of the days, during a discussion of what instructions needed to be given to the jury a defence lawyer even mentioned what appellate lawyers want to know. I think this was after a discussion of whether or not the jury needed to be told to assess whether a duty of care applies in the case which in context was part of what was being denied/allowed to defence and plaintiff lawyers. I'll check where and when as I have not made many notes as yet. (okay found it. Day seven pages 45 and 46)
• 

  soft+gentle

  DNCall

  yup the realm of confidentiality is truly complex. I need to do more reading than I have time for at the moment. Please share your thoughts and I will try to keep up.
• 

  DNCall

  s+g, with regard to your last post, while the question as to who should be included as confidants can be complicated, my point was that parents being included is simple and straightforward, if not obvious.

  The notion that even a repentant child abuser might be offended if he found out that the parents had been warned by the elders, and that he might sue the Watchtower for slander, is simply absurd. Even if that happened, wouldn't that be a more noble case to fight in court than what Watchtower now finds itself fighting?
• 

  soft+gentle

  Of course, DNcall -; but the court system does not think it is absurd. And I don't particularly view the WT as fighting for such a noble aim as confidentiality in itself but as fighting for the freedoms and powers that secretiveness gives them. They cannot be trusted with such freedom and power bu we have to abide by existing laws. Mind you the judge in the the Conti case did view the law as an evolving entity so this arena seems quite hopeful.
• 

  00DAD

  DNCall: The notion that even a repentant child abuser might be offended if he found out that the parents had been warned by the elders, and that he might sue the Watchtower for slander, is simply absurd.

  When a person commits a crime they lose certain rights. Also, truth is an absolute defense to slander.

  The priorities of the WTBTS are all messed up. The only thing they care about is protecting their precious organization.
• 

  DNCall

  s+g: Agreed! Daddio: Yep.
• 

  wha happened?

  Going along with what 00Dad stated, wasn't the WT required to warn parents of a child molester in the congragation? One can always look up the names of molesters in your area ,and I haven't heard a peep about confidentiality issues from the criminals how they have been "slandered". Or would it be slander because the Pedo was never formaly charged, even though a confession may have been made to the elders?
• 

  Dagney

  @wha: an elder told me that if a known pedo moved into the hall, (the example was of one convicted and did his time), the elders would not notify the congregation, parents etc. He said they were told to "watch" the pedo, make sure he never worked in service or were around the children. He also said they gave a special needs talk advising the congo to keep close to the children, watch them, work with them alone in service.

  He said that people were confused because they understood there was something "up" due to the special needs talk about being "on guard", but didn't know what they were supposed to be on guard about.

  He felt it was a bad policy and just shruggged his shoulders.