The Two Witness Rule breeds Predators.

by quellycatface 11 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

  • Band on the Run
    Band on the Run

    No, you don't understand tort law. A long time ago the law tended to not believe children and women. Judges would have to throw out noncorroborated testimony by young children or hold an elaborate hearing to see if the child understood the moral wrong of lyiing. These legal rules were biased towards protecting the allleged pedophile or rapist. If I recall correctly, the women's movement demanded that rape laws be changed. The totality of circumstances was examined. Once the rape laws changed, and they changed relatively quickly, one reform started, the law concerning children's testimony came under renewed examination.

    DNA evidence was a huge leap forward. Contrary to what the law thought, children do not lie in most circumstances. There are a host of factors to consider. Most children are emphatic and detailed about what happened. Yet they have never been exposed to adult material. The Witnesses are not conducting criminal trials. Nor are they suing for civil damages. Now they can be sued by the children for inaction. It is about time. The mandatory reporting laws must be revisited and made strronger so they work at a practical level. Even if Conti is limited by its facts, it will send a strong signal that elders and the WT ignore allegations at their peril.

    There is no legal right to be a Witness or to continue as a Witness. I hope that the two witness rule is staying in place b/c of the Conti case is pending. If she prevails, I can see new light concerning the rule. It is not a core part of Witness doctrine. Someday elders will realize that their interests and the Society's interest will likely be adverse, and seek their own counsel. Despite some assertions here, there has never been proof that a large database exists at WT. Why anyone would maintain a database when they have no legal duty is beyond me. I came across an article on tort law and First Amendment concerns the other day. I had never heard of the law journal. The author concluded that the First Amendment is a bar to tort actions in the US.

    How do you measure damages if you are not allowed to be ministerial servant or run the a/v system during a meeting. Damages must be able to be measured. I also believe that reputation in the local community is an important element to a cause of action. The local KH is much smaller than the local community. Most community members m ight consider being in trouble at the KH a high mark of honor. In fact, tell people about the two witness rule and the reputation of Witnesses in general will definitely decline.

  • ekruks
    ekruks

    Criminal and civil law are distinct. For a civil case, where you are dealing with tort, then the judge may opt for whichever side presents the most convincing case, but with a criminal case, the prosecution must with certainty, with no doubt whatsoever, prove the defendant is guilty.

    There is absolutely a legal right to be a Jehovah's Witness - it's called "freedom of religion" - in fact, in the USA, it's enshrined in your constitution, and why the FDS won cases against it, such as the flag salute issue. As for becoming a ministerial servant, if someone met the qualifications and is ignored or removed, then that is discrimination, and such is highly illegal. You seem to think the law must state everything in writing, when actually it is based on principles, most arising from previous cases. You could actually sue for damages and could win simply on the basis of stress, in fact, this would be far easier in the USA than Europe.

    It is from that viewpoint, of the organisation not being allowed to discriminate, and also that it's not allowed to slander, that it cannot just strike ministerials servants or elders off or start disfellowshipping without reason (yes, I know it does). If a person was accused of being a paedophile without evidence, they could sue the FDS.

    I don't know what you mean by children are not exposed to adults material, because sex is all over day time TV, even innuendo in kids programmes. I would not think children lie of these horrific crimes, but the courts must demand evidence, and so FDS can not be said to be promoting child abuse if it likewise demands two witnesses. Increased cooperation with the police, allowance of DNA testing would be useful, and not simply relying on the spirit to reveal sin.

    The real tragedy is how corrupt and poorly trained bodies of elders are, so mess these cases up or just say stupid things like "but he's a lovely brother" (though college boards, companies etc. act similar) and that the Bible (yes, the Bible) doesn't allow cooperation with the authorities but reliance on the spirit to reveal matters. Repentence of sin is in the Christian or Islamic mindset more important than punishment for crime - crime is that of the world, sin is the holy teaching. However, the FDS lack power to detain the pervert from the community, to imprison, and even the state often fails such.

    Should you be questioning the JWs or questioning the inspiration of the Bible itself? Must you have it to lean on to get through life, jumping from religion to religion, ever vulnerable for abuse by the next religious movement coming along. I know life is hard, but we need to find something better, and not drink, drugs, etc. is not the answer.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit