BOE 2-15-02 What Does It Really Say?

by silentlambs 21 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Pathofthorns

  Bill,

  I am really at a loss to understand your intentions. It seems that the WT made several clear statements that were very positive in this letter and yet you continue to criticize them. It makes little sense to push for change and then when it happens, to harp on the WT for making changes. Why not just be clear that no matter what changes are made you will always be angry over past policies and therefore the WT can never satisfy your demands. The past cannot be changed.

  Machislopp wrote:
  

  The " Society" is trying to undo some of the damage..

  I would think that is what everyone here has been pushing for and that "undoing the damage" would be a good thing?

  There are several past policies to be angry about and I am not denying anyone's right to be upset over them. With regard to child abuse, on a case by case basis I hope there are individuals who are able to prove in a court of law that the Society or their elders were negligent.

  But the past must be dealt with in a different manner than the present and the future. In the past we are dealing with victims and people who have already been harmed, and in the present and in the future we are hoping to protect children and prevent victims. So we must embrace good policy changes in the interests of children, while at the same time seeing what can be done legally to determine the extent of the Society's negligence on a case by case basis. If further changes need to be made, they need to build upon present changes. All change rarely happens at one time but gradually over a period of time.

  I wrote the following yesterday, and have raised the following issue several times but I have not noticed any addressing of the issues I've raised.

  While I respect Bill's intentions to protect children, I still remain unclear how mandatory reporting of these allegations to the authorities respects a victim's right to their dignity if they feel too embarrassed over what happened or if it is their desire not to testify in court. I realize that it is extremely important to get child molesters out of society, but prosecuting these individuals and protecting other children must be balanced with the protecting of the mental and emotional health of the victims.

  Since most victims, whether Witnesses or not, do not go to the police, the question arrises, do they want others to be obligated to go to the police on their behalf or do they wish to retain that right for themselves?

  I believe the Society's stating clearly they will not discourage victims of abuse from going to the authorities was a significant step. This puts the decision solely in the victim's hands to decide what they would like to do.

  I think this whole mandatory reporting thing needs to be examined in the light of whether victims really want such a policy and whether it is in best interests of all victims. I would like to know their thoughts on the matter and I think understanding why most victims choose NOT to go to the police is extremely important. Do victims really want to wave their right to go to the police and have someone else obligated to do that for them?

  It is my opinion that the most needed change has been met with regard to the clear statements of the 02-02 BOE letter and further changes amount to basically "fine tuning" the policy. The Society should also proceed with an information campaigne to educate their members more adequately on the subject with a publication dedicated specifically to the topic of child abuse.

  I think the clear wording in this letter is a direct result of your efforts and you should be commended for giving this matter the attention it needed. I also hope you can give me the courtesy of a reply to the concerns I have raised with regard to the future changes you are seeking.

  Path
• 

  moman

  Path, the Catholic church said, "we are sorry", yes sorry they got caught!
  How does this differ from the WT?

  Just like the blood-issue etc., the suffering endured by the "sheep" is secondary to the survival of the corporate-elite & their free-ride on the power-train!
• 

  Undecided

  Hi Path,

  I think you have made a good point, each family or individual should have the freedom to make his/her own decision to report a case of molestation to the law authorities.

  I also think the past record of the WT society's coverup should be exposed. They have clearly neglected the victims of child abuse in favor of protecting their image(Jehovah's in their view)as if God was dependant on them for this. I think their real motives were self serving and it will prove to be more damaging to their God's name than if they had dealt with it properly, as it has done to the Catholics. If God's spirit was really directing things I would think it would have known this.

  I'm sure Bill Bowen's work will have a very good effect on this problem in the future.

  Ken P.
• 

  Bodhisattva

  Path, I agree with a lot of what you said. But won't the elders go to the authorities, regardless of the wishes of the victim, if the Legal Department tells them to do so?

  In an NPR interview Thursday or Friday, a cardinal explained how in the past if the victims reported on a priest but asked that the police not get involved, their wishes were respected. But now, he said, in his diocese they would respond that the police should be called, and he opined that this should happen everywhere.

  So should the wishes of the victims be respected? Or is their reluctance to go to the police merely a continuation of their reverance for the abuser that may have been instrumental in the abuse?

  For the silentlambs cause, I would recommend summarizing things something like this for each issue:

  Problem: For many years, victims in non-reporting states have been discouraged from going to the civil authorities so as to prevent besmirching the congregation's reputation, especially when no judicial action is taken. Some are even threatened with punishment, and some have been disfellowshipped for doing so.

  Response: The February 15, 2002 letter to bodies of elders in the United States instructs "Never suggest to anyone that they should not report an allegation to the police or other authorities. If you are asked, make it clear that whether to report the matter to the authorities or not is a personal decision for each individual to make and that there are no congregation sanctions for either decision. That is, no elder would criticize anyone who reports an allegation to the authorities. [emphasis added]"

  Comment: While this gets rid of the disfellowshipping, it does not do away with the fear. To a witness, being told that there are not sanctions or criticism for doing something is code for saying that something is wrong but not punishable. Why would one have to say 'there is no punishment for doing this' about something that is not only not wrong, but a civic responsibility? Very often the elder will not be asked about whether the allegation should be reported, because the same power over the victim that allowed the abuser to do these things also makes the victim feel guilty about telling. The Watchtower should instruct elders to encourage the victims to alert the civil authorities to any allegations and, even if they doubt the victims credibility, they sould alert the authorities themselves if the victim does not.

  Something like this that tells people where we started, what has happened so far, and what more needs to be done, would be a good thing on the silentlambs website.
• 

  Amazing

  Thanks Bill, excellent and on target presentation of the issue. Your comparison to the 1962 Watchtower is an important 'pivotal' point as you note, and an excellent reference for any JW or x-JW to keep in mind. The 2-02 BOE letter is extremely weak, though giving the appearance of being a positive step in the right direction.

  Pathoforms, the Society 2-02 letter is not step in the right direction - for victims, but only to protect the Watchtower's legal concerns. Were this to be a step in the right direction for victims, then the 2-02 BOE letter should have stated that Elders must report suspected child molesters to the authorities as part of the fidicuary obligation in a position of TRUST ... much like Cardinal Law in Boston should have reported Pedophile Priests to the law.

  Here are some things to consider:

  1. All 50 States require doctors and psychologists to report pedophiles to the authorities.

  2. 38 States require Clergy and Lawyers to report pedophiles.

  3. Some of the 22 non-mandatory states have various shades of this, such as some states 'encourage' clergy to report, but do not make them testify if is breaks the 'confessional' privilege. NONE of the 22 remaining states - that I am aware of - protect clergy from testifying in civil suits. Meaning, that if you can't get them to talk in criminal cases, you can nail them in civil cases ... and this is why the Watchtower Scoiety is going to be striped BUTT NAKED of its assests ... why ... because it is easy to do in civil action, and the standard of proof is not as high as criminal cases.

  I have some more comments, but will to make a new post on it, because it goes off on a tangent, and is long. Thanks again S/L
• 

  Reborn2002

  This is the 3rd time I have seen this specific number arise, and I am surprised no one else has said something.

  2. 38 States require Clergy and Lawyers to report pedophiles.

  3. Some of the 22 non-mandatory states have various shades of this, such as some states 'encourage' clergy to report, but do not make them testify if is breaks the 'confessional' privilege. NONE of the 22 remaining states

  [Bold mine for emphasis]

  How can you have 38 states which require and 22 remaining
  non-mandatory states?

  38+22=60

  Last I checked the USA stopped at FIFTY states.

  So which is it? Not trying to be rude or malicious.. but somewhere along the line the numbers are distorted.

  Please explain or correct.

  It is not religious persecution for an informed person to expose publicly a certain religion as being false, thus allowing persons to see the difference between false religion and true religion.
  WT 11/15/1963 page 688 paragraph 3
• 

  Mulan

  Oprah's show on Friday, 26th, was about child molestation ........... and it emphasized it was 80%of the time, done by someone known to the family. She made a HUGE point that this must be reported to the police. There was a District Attorney on the show, who stated that point too, because while acknowledging that it's hard on the child to testify, it will stop these people from molesting another child. If they knew, for a fact, that the child will report them, after one incident, they might not do it again. Parents were urged to listen to those little "red flags" that come up, when someone is really interested in your kids. And, most importantly, TALK to your kids, and tell them this might happen to them, and that they should tell you right away, and that you WILL believe them.

  It was a good show, and very timely.

  Marilyn (aka Mulan)
  "No one can take advantage of you, without your permission." Ann Landers
  
• 

  Reborn2002

  I see my relevant statement has been ignored up to this point.

  BTTT, I want answers.

  It is not religious persecution for an informed person to expose publicly a certain religion as being false, thus allowing persons to see the difference between false religion and true religion.
  WT 11/15/1963 page 688 paragraph 3
• 

  dungbeetle

  The lists are not inclusive or exclusive, and they overlap reborn. That is why the numbers don't come out to an even fifty. 22 states are non-mandatory, but the remaining states have requirements that vary. And plus the list changes. I am looking for an up-to-date- list; there was one here on the board somewehre, but I'm sure it's page 974 by now.
• 

  dungbeetle

  http://detnews.com/2002/religion/0203/25/religion-447474.htm

  "If clergy know that they must, outside of sacramental privilege and those seeking pastoral guidance, report incidents of molestation of children, they will feel more comfortable in sharing that kind of information, and they will realize the church is taking this seriously," he said.
  In all states, the law requires professionals who work with children -- such as doctors, teachers and social workers -- to report abuse.
  Twelve states specifically require clergy to report suspected abuse, according to the National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information, a federal agency. Several of those states exempt information learned during confession or spiritual counseling.
  An additional 16 states have laws saying in broad terms that anyone with knowledge of abuse should report it.
  In Massachusetts, the House and Senate have each passed bills but have yet to agree on how to exempt the various types of conversations considered sacred by different denominations.
  The majority of child abuse reports are filed by those required under law to do so. In Connecticut, for example, 62 percent of the 28,304 child abuse reports received by the Department of Children and Families in 2001 came from people obligated to report such allegations.
  The penalty under the various mandatory-reporting laws is usually a fine, and prosecutors rarely go after those who fail to report abuse.
  In addition, states whose reporting laws extend to the clergy have limited definitions of the abuse they must divulge. For example, clergy in Connecticut do not necessarily have to report colleagues they suspect of abuse. They simply must report allegations that involve a teacher, guardian or caregiver.
  Still, such laws "send a message that the state takes the issue of child abuse seriously, and that we expect all Californians to do everything within their power to prevent child abuse and identify abusers," said Nathan Barankin, spokesman for the attorney general in California. The state is among those that require clergy to report abuse.
  Some church leaders say the obligation should have certain conditions. Cardinal Edward Egan said this week that the New York Archdiocese would report allegations if it found probable cause after its own investigation, and if the alleged victim consented.
  "We have to respect the rights of all persons involved, the rights of the accuser as well as the rights of the accused," Egan said.