by tim hooper 15 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
I've just been informed by a JW apologist that regarding the 2 witness rule in cases of child abuse, the child himself counts as 1 of the witnesses. He also stated that if 2 children complain about abuse separately, the 2 children then count as 2 witnesses.
Any thoughts please?
That's all true.
Same as any other JC situation.
Problem is for that one child that "tells" on the perp............where's the other witness (unless the perp is also an exhibitionist)?
Doc
Yes that is correct Tim. That is why so many paedophile JWs have been df'd and gone to prison across the globe. The victims have come forward.
The problem lies where an offender only takes one victim. One victim is good enough for a police conviction and prison sentence but the paedophile will not get df'd.
Kate xx
The elders manual does mention that.
However, (1) in the vast majority of cases, the victims are intimdated against ever telling, and (2) what if the victims are very young, say, age 5 or younger? Elders are not going to convene a judicial case based on the words of two 5-year-olds.
It might sound good, but in practice, it's still a horrifically flawed procedure.
If the elders would call the police a "second witness" could be found through investigation in ways that law enforcement are generally highly trained. Sadly because of the Watchtower's two witness policy this evidence may never be discovered.
Since they claim everything they do is from the Bible I want to know what scripture mentions the two witness rule.
Hi Shirley this is where the rule comes from.
The Watchtower Society use the scripture found in Deuteronomy chapter 9, verse 15, which says “No single witness should rise up against a man respecting any error or any sin, in the case of any sin that he may commit. At the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses the matter should stand good.” They also like to use the scriptures in Matthew chapter 18, verses 15 and 16, which say “Moreover, if your brother commits a sin, go lay bare his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. (16) But if he does not listen, take along with you one or two more, in order that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every matter may be established.”
However this certainly does not work with sexual abuse as there are hardly any times when the abuse is actually witnessed by anyone.
Thanks alanv - like you said there's no way those scriptures could be used for sexual abuse
In another thread, someone recently pointed out an OT scripture that brings an interesting perspective to this subject. We all know the scripture which says that if a woman is raped she must scream or else she would be also be stoned for immorality:
"If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death--the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you. " (Deut. 22:23, 24)
That passage catches a lot of flak from people today for its primitive mentality, but I want to draw attention to the next verse instead of getting hung up on this one:
" But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. " (Deut. 22:25)
The implication here is that screaming would not have mattered since there was apparently no one around to hear her, therefore she will not be held accountable. More interestingly, the further implication here is that there is no need of a second or third contemporary witness in a case of accused rape, since we just established that verse 25 describes a crime with no bystanders.
Presumably there would be proof of the rape given afterward for consideration by the local elders. Similarly today, a rape can be established to a reasonable degree by gathering evidence afterward, with the evidence then being considered in court. And yet JW elders do not allow examinations or interviews of the child by professionals to count as a "witness" because they were not there at the time.
So to hold an accusation of molestation to the general rule about two or more witnesses actually contradicts the Old Testament that the Society seems to hold in such high regard. As primitive as the Law was, Deut. 22:25 demonstrates that even the ancient Hebrews understood that if an act is committed in private, then you have to relax the standard for determining guilt.
Matthew chapter 18 clarifies the principle found at Deut. 19 in that the "two or three witnesses" were brought in by one person to be witnesses of the genuine attempt to settle a dispute with another person (brother). This arrangement was not intended to be used as the final word when determining whether or not a serious crime was committed. If you read a few verses down at Deut. 19:17, the priests and judges were supposed to "search thoroughly" into any accusations of wrong-doing. Why the WT insists on scriptural cherry-picking is beyond reason.
