I would point anyone who really wishes to know the answer to the position of silentlambs organization on reporting allegations of molestation to review the following posts that have already been made on this thread regarding this subject. The first post started as follows:
-----------------------------
It appears there are a few misconceptions when it comes to the reporting of child abuse. Some have taken statements I have made out of context to make it appear there is a contradiction in how silentlambs views the issue of reporting child molestation. Whether this is being done out of ignorance or intentionally remains to be seen. The point is that in all fifty States it is MANDATORY to report child molestation. What does MANDATORY mean? Webster’s defines it as:
“Required by or as if by mandate or command: obligatory.”
Now the question remains is it MANDATORY in all fifty states for clergy to report child molestation? The answer is no. Only sixteen States require mandatory cleric reporting of child molestation. So when I make comments that relate to NON-MANDATORY reporting I refer to the State law that allows clergy to not report child molestation.
The next question that would arise, are parents MANDATED to report child abuse. The answer is YES! Each State has certain laws and penalties that are defined locally for parental non-reporting of child molestation. These penalties can range from being charged with a misdemeanor and facing some type of fine, jail time, civil court due to failure to act, to loss of custodial care due to negligence. The federal law Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA)(Jan. 1996 version), 42 U.S.C. 5101, et seq.. requires all fifty States to comply with MANDATORY reporting or lose federal funding, no State is not receiving Federal funding due to non-compliance.
So the point remains, the 2-15-02 BOE letter is out of harmony with Federal guidelines regarding the MANDATORY reporting of child abuse. The BOE letter states that reporting is optional with the statement:
“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 if PARENTS or GUARDIANS choose to not report child molestation they will not be reported to authorities and will remain as good examples within the congregation. This is in violation of MANDATORY reporting laws in all fifty states and is also in violation of JW doctrine that requires all JW”S to be in subjection to the “superior authorities” in all legal matters unless man’s law conflicts with God’s law. In this instance WT is condoning the defiance of MANDATORY reporting laws on child molestation and leaving it a personal decision.
For those of you who wish to split hairs with supposed concern for “timid” victims or going to the enth degree to find a basis to not report, you are simply dead wrong, the LAW argues otherwise.
I am including below the link and comments from a website that goes into all details of this subject. I encourage any who have further questions to educate yourself on this topic. This website has been posted on silentlambs for over one year as are many other resources on the “assistance” page. For those who wish to make broad sweeping remarks on this topic many would be better served to read before they speak out and thus have a better grasp of why WT Policy is vastly deficient and must change to protect children.
Silentlambs
. http://www.smith-lawfirm.com/mandatory_reporting.htm
-----------------------------
So the question is what is silentlambs stance on reporting?
For any minor it is mandatory to report any allegation of abuse.
To protect children properly this is the only course of action.
How should WT best address this issue? The answer is in the next post:
-----------------------------
The solution would be for a letter to be sent to all congregations that states parents are to be required to report to the "superior authorities" first before going before a judicial investigation for child molestation.
silentlambs
-----------------------------
The responsibility would be given to the parents where it should be or any other member of the congregation who observes any hint of molestation. As with most matters in the congregation elders generally find out last, this would put child molestation in the same context. Elders would seldom be faced with a reporting matter as the publishers would be empowered to take action by reporting.
What about an adult who reports an allegation of molestation?
Please read another post made on this thread:
------------------------------------
Any victim who is a child that has been molested that comes to my attention will immediately be reported to the police. Any adult who reports a molestation when they were a child will be strongly encouraged to turn the pedophile over to the authorities and given whatever support they need which may include counseling to get them to do so asap.
Silentlambs
-------------------------------------
So an adult would have to take the action themselves with strong encouragement from silentlambs. Further clarification was given in the following post:
-------------------------------------
I would like to make a comment regarding the mandatory reporting of child abuse. The 1996 Federal Government regulation involves the reporting of actions that happen to minor children. If anyone would take the time to read the information you will find that to be true. In KY where I reside a suspicion of a minor being abused is required to be reported, yet if the one abused is an adult the requirement to file charges falls with the adult to file the charges and sign the papers for prosecution. You can file all the reports you want but if the adult victim is not willing to sign the complaint then no charges would be filed. While the State of KY has no statue of limitations the adult victim is required to file the charges according to my experience. While other States may differ as to how this works, this is an example of one State.
-------------------------------------
So here it was clarified that the adult is the one who has to report the molester and little can be done to force them to do so. By encouraging counseling it is a last ditch effort to help them be strong enough to press charges. Now to the next part of this post, what should WT do with regard to reporting? The following recommendation was made:
------------------------------------
Hundreds and hundreds if not thousands and thousands of documented cases of child molestation remain in congregation judicial files in this country. One objective mentioned over one year ago was to turn all these records over to authorities for investigation much like the Catholic Church has done recently in several instances. Allow child molesters to be investigated and if proven, prosecuted, this action would protect thousands of children.
So to sum it up, two things need to take place within the organization regarding reporting:
1. All congregations should be empowered by a letter that instructs them to call the police first when a molestation issue arises in order to be in compliance with the "superior authorities"
2. All judicial records involving any crime not reported to police should be turned over for proper investigation and or prosecution.
Until this happens Jehovah's Witnesses defy their own theology and reproach Jehovah and their organization by their failure to comply with the legal requirements of the "superior authorities." More importantly the atrocities continue to the innocent who are victimized by WT Policy.
Silentlambs
-------------------------------------
So what is the position of silentlambs organization when it comes to reporting?
1. Minor child-Mandatory reporting.
2. Adult-Encouraged reporting.
The WT organization needs to:
1. Empower publishers to report first before getting scriptural guidance from elders.
2. Turn over all records of child molestation for investigation/prosecution.
Therefore in the context of the information above I provided the following clear and concise answers to Marvin:
--------------------------------------
Question 1:
If presented with a situation where a minor comes to you and says they had been abused but persisted that they would not talk about their experience to anyone who would automatically report the matter to authorities, would you offer them help on the condition of leaving the prerogative of reporting to them or would you turn them away?
Neither, I would help the child see the importance of reporting the CRIME and I would help them report the crime in harmony with Federal Law. That is what mature adults do when they wish to help children.
-------------------------------------
SEE POSTION ONE OF SILENTLAMBS- 1. Minor child-MANDATORY reporting.
There is no option, if the child adamantly wishes to not report, to bad, another child could be molested for inaction. If the minor refuses to talk to you, you know there is an issue of molestation simply report what you know to child services and allow them to investigate, a person trained in these matters is far better qualified to help the child and get to the bottom of the matter.
-------------------------------------
Question 2:
If the person were an adult victimized in childhood with the same request, what would you do?
I would help the adult see the importance of reporting the CRIME and would help them report the crime in harmony with Federal Law. If they then made the personal decision to not sign complaint papers then I would have done all that I can do other than warn anyone who I may know personally who has contact with the molester.
This is what caring people in positions of responsibility do when they wish to protect children.
-------------------------------------
SEE POSITION TWO OF SILENTLAMBS- 2. Adult-Encouraged reporting.
You cannot force someone to do what they do not wish to do. You can encourage them to do what is in the best interest of children.
-------------------------------------
Question 3:
Assuming the WTS one day invokes a policy that elders should always encourage victims of abuse to report the crime to authorities, then,
If a child approaches an elder and says, “I want to talk about being molested, but I am unwilling to do it if law enforcement must be notified of who did it to me,” would you have the elder turn the child away or provide them with whatever help they could otherwise give?
Neither, the elder would help the child see the importance of reporting the CRIME and would help them report the crime in harmony with Federal Law. This is how an elder would protect the congregation from danger.
-------------------------------------
SEE POSTION ONE OF SILENTLAMBS-1. Minor-MANDATORY reporting.
If WT enacts the suggestions of silentlambs this will seldom occur as publishers will more than likely have already reported, yet if an elder was approached he now knows a “suspicion” of abuse has occurred. If the child shuts down he can still report or try to gain the trust of the child and help them see the importance of reporting.
-------------------------------------
In answering this question keep in mind that the child approaches the elder, not the other way around. If the elder turns down offering whatever help they could have because of mandatory reporting and the child never approaches anyone else for help, who has been protected?
No one, as the elder would help the child see the importance of reporting the CRIME and would help them report the crime in harmony with Federal Law. Individuals who are adult and in positions of responsibility have to do what is in the interests of all concerned as any person who is in a profession would advise.
-------------------------------------
SEE POSITION ONE SILENTLAMBS-1. Minor-MANDATORY reporting.
An elder would never turn down a child suspected of being molested and the child would not be allowed to remain anonymous as the matter would be reported, thus neither answer has application following silentlambs guidelines.
-------------------------------------
Who, then, would have an opportunity to encourage and strengthen the child to a point where they would turn in their abuser?
The elder or whoever hears any HINT of child molestation would help the child see the importance of reporting the CRIME and would help them to report the crime in harmony with Federal Law.
-------------------------------------
SEE POSITION ONE SILENTLAMBS-1. Minor-MANDATORY reporting.
Any report of any molestation would have the support of all parties if silentlambs guidelines were followed and this gives the entire congregation the basis to offer positive assurances. This question has little application if it were applied to the congregation now for victims are generally not encouraged, strengthened or helped in anyway.
-------------------------------------
Simple questions, simple answers, yet somehow I feel it is not enough to satisfy those who are not really looking for answers.
silentlambs
-------------------------------------
I offered the above in good faith strongly suspecting the simple, clear and concise answers would not be accepted. When they were not, I made the following post:
-------------------------------------
In my opinion, by their posts Path and Marvin reveal their agendas have little to do with protecting children, thus I feel my efforts have been worth while. Of course, that is my opinion, but it is an opinion that will continue until these men prove otherwise. It is my hope someday they will see the need to use some of this energy they use to foment subtle argument to misrepresent and confuse the truth and instead work with a meaningful effort that will protect children. I will look forward to that day if and when it occurs.
Marvin,
"Simple questions, simple answers, yet somehow I feel it is not enough to satisfy those who are not really looking for answers."
Brother, you just got busted...
silentlambs
-------------------------------------
This lead to about three pages of ranting and insults directed at me and or the silentlambs organization. Not once was I contacted personally for any clarification as I requested, none of the detailed answers offered above were accepted as a "proper" explanation. The confusing and convoluted reasoning led others into the fray, yet I ask anyone who reads this, what does Marvin want?
1. A sincere and honest answer to how silentlambs addresses molestation allegations?
2. Something else which is not sincere and honest.
I encourage anyone to reread the posts of Marvin and Path and see if you can understand why it is so hard for them to understand something so clearly stated.
Path asked this question early on,
-------------------------------------
I will ask you directly, when a victim comes forward with their story to Silentlambs, do you Bill Bowen contact the authorities if the victims have not yet done so? Or do you allow the victim to make that choice? If victims knew that if they told their story to you, you would contact the authorities irregardless of their wishes, do you think you would be contacted by more victims or less victims?
Path
-------------------------------------
Does this not seem remarkably like the questions posed above by Marvin? How could two men who are just looking for clarification basically pose the same problem yet not be able to see the answer in my extensive clear and concise posts on this matter?
The result was the last post I made on this thread which goes as follows:
------------------------------------
I "think" it is obvious to the "thinking" ones that any answer given will not meet the "Marvin" criteria resulting in insults from everything to morality to intelligence as well as threats. You expose yourself as being unreasonable and unwilling to put forth any balanced effort to come to a conclusion that requires you to actually do anything to stop WT Policy from hurting children. It seems you have "thought" yourself into a box where you can justify doing nothing but bickering about details. It is a sad waste but perhaps a subconscious justification for not accomplishing meaningful actions.
Silentlambs
-------------------------------------
I have yet to see anything that makes me feel otherwise. For your review please see below the insults posted by Marvin after I answered his three questions. Is this a man seeking understanding? or a person seeking a platform to discredit one of the strongest efforts to date in trying to help victims of molestation?
Does it really seem to be as Hillary_step stated:
"Marvin is one of the most honest, direct and yet reasonable posters on this Board. His intentions are *always* good, as many of his past posts will testify. The intelligent and measured manner that he approaches these difficult issues does him credit."
Perhaps such conduct is viewed as exceptional by others, I beg to differ.
I strongly suspect an apology will not be forthcoming.
Silentlambs
--------------------------------------
One day maybe you’ll read up about why neither of them contributes to honest discussion or refutes anything presented on this thread.
Insult-
No, that does not follow from what I wrote. My comments explain my reasons for not trusting Bill.
Insult-
What level of trust others have in the man is beyond my ability to know, except for those who have told me. If you trust him, fine.
Insult-
This is the forum Bill choose to clear up misconceptions about what he’s said, not me! If you meant my motives, only Bill’s words or actions can discredit him.
Insult-
Frankly, though I could pull the man’s britches down about some of his less than stellar interpretations of law and other lesser important things, only Bill can bend over and show his behind, which he’s doing a pretty good job of right now.
Insult-
The reason those other issues are not important to me here is because I already know where the law stands no matter that Bill attributes to it.
Insult-
But what Bill means by what he says of his positions; only he knows. So I can only ask him. Get it now?
Insult-
This is so typical of the WTS. I suppose that’s where you learned the behavior, so at least there’s an explanation!
Insult-
I have no concern about what others feel they understand. Of course, whether they understand Bill correctly is another question, but that is not my concern.
Insult-
Theocratic War Strategy is the WTS' way of justifying its leaders' ability to lie when it pleases them. This has nothing at all to do with whether there is some problem created over other people voicing what they feel a position should be in a given circumstance.
Insult-
If he is unwilling to go on record about his position on agreeing up front about confidentiality on issues as it relates to the very cause he says he stands for, how and why should I trust what he would do with a voice discussion where it is far easier to make trouble for someone out of spite or ignorance?!
Insult-
I cannot trust a man that refuses to explain publicly what he wants people to support publicly!
Insult-
No, Bill has not given clear details about "what should be."
Insult-
Of course any of us can choose to keep our traps shut, but on issues of public concern someone has to say what the position is. Otherwise what is to rally around?
Insult-
There are quite a few people watching this thing who are considering just how far they can go in support of Bill's proposals.
Insult-
If you feel I've twisted Bill's words then please give me one example. We will see who's twisted what.
Insult-
I guess that dirt simple request is a helluva lot tougher for Bill to comply with than it should be.
Insult-
If Bill is unwilling to make public what he feels should be policy given a real life circumstance then he's asking people to publicly support something they can't publicly talk about, which would be absurd.
Insult-
I mean, if he feels like his approach is the best one then what good does it do to hide it by refusing to answer specific questions with an equally specific answer.
Insult-
The questions posed are so dirt simple practically anyone could give their answer to them.
Insult-
It is a safe assumption that Bill wants people to fall behind and support what he feels should happen regarding allegations of child abuse.
Insult-
Bill doesn't ask potential supporters to give ambivalent support so he shouldn't give ambivalent answers to concerns that are important to everyone who cares.
Insult-
The troubling thing is getting him to spit out whether our suspicion of his meaning is correct, that we agree on this point, or whether he means something slightly or greatly different.
Insult-
His answer on that question is yet again ambiguous to the point that it could mean very different things in terms of whether he would report with or without the adult's permission as a condition of helping them.
Insult-
Bill will answer what he wants to answer and he will dodge what he wants to dodge. It's up to each person to make of his actions what they will.
Insult-
As a point of logic, when a person is presented with a legitimate bifurcation then answering with "Neither" is saying "I will not answer the question." This is why my conclusion that Bill does not want to make his position clear.
Insult-
Bill's response was no more than a reply. It was not an answer.
Insult-
Therefore I again presented precise questions for the sake of understanding, not to simply hear him editorialize.
Insult-
I've already heard his general editorials and they do not answer questions of meaning in important specific areas.
Insult-
As things stand now the only conclusion I can draw is that Bill does not want to be understood, or maybe that he does not comprehend the request for understanding.
Insult-
I lean toward the former conclusion because my efforts have been so precise that I would think any competent adult could discern the intent to understand.
Insult-
A person who claims they want to be understood precisely cannot be trusted when they refuse to give precise answers to precise questions. It's an inexplicable dichotomy to act that way.
Insult-
That anyone would hold to such an approach in view of the seriousness and realness of the topic makes it all the more difficult to fathom why they would do it.
Insult-
But one thing is for sure, like Bill, when asked precise questions on practical matters you too refuse to give precise answers. This is what you just did with your last response to me here.
Insult-
This smacks of the same nonsensical tactics used by WTS leadership. I cannot tolerate it, and I don't know a single thinking person that could.
Insult-
But I will not waste my time arguing with people like you who prove they are willing to assert accusations against people yet not prove them by offering evidence to substantiate them. This you have done on this very thread.
Insult-
Furthermore, I will not waste my time debating critical details of important issues with people who repeatedly refuse to stand up and give straightforward answers to straightforward questions.
Insult-
To me this is cowardly and dishonest.
Insult-
What idiots make of it bothers me not. I only feel pity for them.
Insult-
I cannot unite with someone who refuses to clarify telling questions. Certainly not after giving it a Spartan effort (and you should know what this means if you know anything about history).
Insult-
No, I did not change a thing, and Bill did not answer my questions. All he gave was a reply, and I think he knows it.
Insult-
My, My, what games you play, Bill. Talk about ambiguity!
Insult-
I guess no body should have thought asking for straightforward and unambiguous answers would elicit straightforward and unambiguous answers.
Insult-
Guess we’ll have to now ask that Bill interpret his responses so we can get answers.
Insult-
(Bill: this is an example of a straightforward and unambiguous answer)
Insult-
(Bill: this is an example of a straightforward and unambiguous answer)
Insult-
Bill,
If you persist with your weasel worded answers then we can only conclude you do not want to be understood.
Insult-
My efforts to help victims of child abuse among Jehovah’s Witnesses will then continue but without worry for how it might overlap, contradict or complicate your efforts.
Insult, Threat-
but so far it is unavoidable. No one can join efforts with a person who refuses to make themselves clear in the face of basic questions expressly for that purpose!
Insult-
Frankly, a person who refuses to make themselves clear usually has something to hide.
Insult-
Whether it is personal ego or failings of some other nature most will never know, or really care.
Insult-
Refusal to give straightforward and unambiguous answers! What a damn shame
Insult-
