I don't have the new elder's manual on my laptop but I remember that testimony by non-jws could be allowed but at the elders discretion. If that is the case, forensic evidence would be even less favorably viewed. Being found guilty by a non-jw court has not been used in a JC to determine guilt, only the brothers on the JC can make that decision. That's why I have seen jw pedophiles sentenced to prison but not df'd based on that.
Is forensic evidence a "witness" for chid abuse cases?
by jwfacts 30 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
-
-
Julia Orwell
They miss the mercy- the whole point of being a Christian is to protect the weak and help the vulnerable. They're so far gone they quibble over what is evidence and what percentage of repentant acts can be quantified to prove you shouldn't be disfellowshipped, and what counts as a witness and what doesn't, they're overstepping Jesus' example of love!
-
Vidiot
Julia Orwell - "...the whole point of being a Christian is to protect the weak and help the vulnerable."
Not as far as JWs are concerned (or really any strand of fundamentalist Christianity, FTM)...
...for them, Christianity is about ultimately defeating the forces of darkness once an for all and returning humanity to a quasi-divine state.
-
Vidiot
blondie - "Being found guilty by a non-jw court has not been used in a JC to determine guilt..."
A lot of people on this thread seem to be - no offense - missing the point.
A JC's primary function is not to determine the accused's guilt or innocence; it's to determine whether or not the accused is repentent. It's (ostensibly) non-repentance that gets an accused DFed, not guilt.
If the two so-called witnesses have already given their testimony, guilt has already been established in the minds of the JC elders..
The reason it feels so much like a "star-chamber" court to most people (even sometimes elders on JCs!) is that they're making the mistake of comparing it too much to a secular court case, which is used to determine guilt or innocence.
-
The Quiet One
Jwfacts-- This thread is the most relevant thing that I could find, someone mentions an 'elder in 2006' but that's about it.. http://topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-witness/TI44IUE8NM8G6D06P/p48
-
Band on the Run
These JW rules concerning corroboration are so funny. For long stretches of time, women and children could not testify. There is an expression in English law about ten bishops testifying. A single bishop as a witness could outweigh the testimony of nobles and commoners. One hundred nobles did not equal a single bishop. A noble was more trustworty than 500 commoners. Also, truth was not determined by verbal testimony. No, you were thrown into a deep lake. If you sank, you were telling the truth. Burning people to death was another time honored way to discerning truth. Certainly, Jesus prevented the flames from burning a truthful person. It was a long road to modern testimony.
Of course, some idiots know better than almost all civilizations on earth.
Their view is comical but the "comical" view affects people's lives in horrid ways.
-
-
blondie
V...I was talking about non-jw witnesses which would include determination of guilt by non-jws in court and forensics developed by non-jws used in court as proof. The elders determine if any witnesses to the offense are credible, jw or non-jw, whether they are too young, not reliable because of being non-jw, and whether their testimony is acceptable...which puts a lot of power into the elders hands regarding guilt. Who does determine guilt then if not the elders, how can they determine repentance if guilt has not yet been determined. (of course, the individual's personal confession is another thing, not requiring witnesses).
I know of 2 jw child molesters who spent quite a bit of time in prison regarding molesting children that were never DF'd from the congregation. Evidently if guilt was established by the JC, he was found repentant, and reproved privately. In one case the elders would not consider the testimony of the 2 daughters and the mother regarding the molesting father.
I know there are many factors and that BOEs are not uniform in their handling of these things, but my experience as been that non-jws are not to be trusted.
-
Band on the Run
If I understand it correctly, European countries do not have a jury system. Rather, their judges are specially trained in forensics, body language involved with deception, a host of factors to determine guilt or innocence.
Why would one repent if one has not commit an offense? So what JW tribunal establishes guilt or falling short of JW standards? What processes are used? In most cases, I would rather a judge determine my fate. So repentance is enough. Pulling down the good name of Jehovah's only organization is no problem. Repentance. What are the hallmarks of repentance? Dilated pupils, tears, sobs, throwing up or hair pulling?
What is the appeals process? We compare it to secular courts b/c we live in a nation of laws. Ecclesiastical courts followed rules The rules may be silly or terrible in modern thought but they did not operate on whim. I suppose we have to trust the whims of the Holy Spirit, leading Jehoover's organization. Hitler, Idi Amin, --such men followed the whim of what they perceived as the Holy Spirit.
-
Marvin Shilmer
-
I don’t see how DNA evidence or medical, police or forensic reports could be used by a judicial committee of elders. Judicial committees have neither the expertise nor the adversarial system to examine and challenge any of these for sake of assessing its value. They’d have to seek testimony from law enforcement officers, doctors, nurses et al and allow cross examination of all these by a litigator trained in each facet of evidence.
Otherwise it’d be no more than a kangaroo court. Oh! Wait. It’s already a kangaroo court.
Nothing would surprise me.
Marvin Shilmer