I'll have a go at it.
… However, not every case deals with pedophilia in the strictest sense. The allegations were about sexual child abuse which has a very large definition. I know of some cases in which the "child" was a teenager; not that this excuses the action, but often the offender was not much older. In this type of case, pedophilia is not the cause but an uncontrolled sex drive is the problem. In this type of case the person is, and should be, treated differently, although it is referred to as "child abuse".
A good point, but it has nothing to do with the Dateline airing.
As far as the ministry is concerned, you said that no pedophile is going to commit his crime with others watching, and that is why he is not allowed to go door-to-door alone. So he would always have at least one on-looker.
To me there are two points to not allowing them to preach: a) Even with an on-looker, you don’t want to tempt them by exposing them to children, and; b) You don’t want to risk letting them “case” a neighborhood, learning what houses might have children home while the parents work. (Though that’s another issue.)
The two witness rule brought out on Dateline was taken out of context almost entirely. This is a scriptural principle designed to protect the innocent, much as the US uses "innocent until proven guilty".
A bad comparison. The US justice system might presume innocence, but they allow circumstantial evidence to be considered. The nonsensical two witnesses rule would allow 100 little boys and girls to come forward individually, and the molester would go free. Want proof? According to Dateline, the elders knew of at least 17 victims of one of the molesters (Pandelo or Fitzwater, I can’t remember off-hand) but did nothing.
This is not to say that if there are not two or more witnesses the matter is dropped entirely… As mentioned, but never explained on Dateline, the elders do investigate matters.
The poster is wrong. Erica said that the matter
was dropped, and she was forbidden to tell anyone about the abuse. This could theoretically be dismissed as an aberration—one bad group of elders among the 77,799 in the US. But Bill Bowen called the WT Legal Department and was told unequivocally to do
nothing if there were not two witnesses. He was
not told to further investigate the matter. He was told to “walk away” so as not to put himself “in a jam.” This blanket advice from WT Legal shows that, not only are cases routinely dropped if there are not two witnesses, but that they are dropped at the behest of WT Legal.
It is Policy.This is not to circumvent state laws or criminal proceedings, but to ensure that the offender is removed from the congregation.
Regardless of the intent, the net result is a circumvention of criminal laws, and a dangerous predator being allowed (even
encouraged--once they learn to abuse the archaic JW system) to continue in their midst.
If someone does bring the accusation forth, and there are no witnesses THEY ARE NOT DISFELLOWSHIPPED FOR SLANDER. I really want to emphasize this point. They can only be disfellowshipped for slander if they spread the accusation through the congregation and it has no basis.
Tell that to the Erica’s of the world. These statements just do not match up with what we’re hearing from victims. Check out some of the testimonials at
Silentlambs.org.
Further, often the elders no that there may be no witnesses, but it's likely the person has committed the offense, in that case parents are warned discreetly to keep their children safe. (On a side note, matters like this are rarely secrets for whatever reason, and many in the congregation will know about the matter even if the person is not disfellowshipped and they take appropriate action.)
Firstly, this is sadly not always the case. (Again, see
Silentlambs.org) Secondly, the issue is
WT policy, not what
might unofficially take place. Do you want to trust the (normally stellar) JW gossip mill to protect your children?
I also find it interesting that Mr. Bowen and the others never quantified their findings. They simply said "a lot" when referring to what they found in their research. What is a lot? 100? or 10? (It's still too many, though) I would be interested in knowing exactly how many cases he has come across.
Mr. Bowen has put forth some numbers—numbers that reach into the tens of thousands. I haven’t really followed those threads, so I couldn’t comment. I do believe Dateline quoted Barbara Anderson as saying that the Brooklyn HQ had hundreds of cases on file. I'd be willing to bet that Bill offered numbers, but Dateline refused to air them because they couldn't be substantiated, and they didn't want to open themselves up to a lawsuit.
Finally, when I go to the Kingdom Hall I'm sitting next to former fornicators, idolators, druggies, drunkards, slanderers, murderers, etc. It's not what they've done, it's what they are trying to do to change, to conform to God's standards, realizing that alone they have no power, but that God can help them to overcome whatever problems they may face. And that he, unlike some of us, has the power to forgive if a mistake is made
Fine, let God judge and forgive as He sees fit. But when these sins are also crimes with real victim’s lives being destroyed, the first priority of we mere mortals is protecting society in general—especially when the victims are little children. As you said, a pedophile will rarely stop doing what they do. So we’re not talking about a
former pedophile, and the first concern of the congregation should be protecting their children (and their trusting parents) from these habitual offenders.
