AlanF
Glad you could enter the discussion.
Our views are not all that far apart. I don’t think Focus’ and mine are all that far apart either, and I think he could see that if he were not apparently so determined to avoid my point for the sake of salvaging his own initial mistake, but I tire of that discussion.
I agree that the Society’s policies regarding child molestation are not clear enough, that they are not proactive enough and that they tend to err toward protecting the Society. But we apparently disagree on whether those policies err toward protecting perpetrators. While I think the Society’s policies may sometimes have the effect of protecting perpetrators it is hard to tell if that protection is to the point of erring toward that protection. Let me explain.
Every judiciary has to have standards. Anytime those standards are almost met but not quite then it may appear that a perpetrator is being protected. This happens all the time in criminal justice systems in developed countries where there is some evidence of guilt but not to the point of proving it to set standards. There is the question of weight of evidence and what weight is required for conviction. The issue is also not as simple as saying that we should protect children at any cost! What about the children of a falsely accused father and husband who ends up spending his life in prison for a molestation he did not commit but was convicted on the word of a single person? That scenario is what makes people sit back and think long and hard about what standards of evidence should be so that justice is more or less assured but not absolutely guaranteed. This is a question that is constantly being asked and resolved in practically every known judiciary.
As I have said before, I believe one thing would effectively solve these and other concerns, that elders should be clearly instructed to encourage victims and parents to report criminal accusations of child molestation to legitimate law enforcement officials. Whether the Society should require elders to report these accusations or suspicions is another question and one that is debatable. For clergypersons (elders in this case) there is a good argument for leaving the prerogative of reporting (or not) to victims and/or parents of victims. I have already spoken to this and see no reason to reiterate.
In your comments there are some errors and/or weaknesses, I will isolate them here.
Regarding reporting or not, the difference between your comparison with China and the Society is this:
Though the Society’s publications do not forbid publishers from reporting serious criminal acts committed by other JWs neither is it actively encouraged. The long and short of it is that Watchtower publications leave that matter more or less alone (as if anyone needs telling!), which leaves the prerogative in the hands of each individual JW. That is precisely what elders are told verbatim upon calling the Society’s service department regarding allegations of serious criminal acts, including child molestation. In the case of child molestation the service department desk will send the reporting elder also to the legal department where he will be told the same thing again. Since the Society’s publications and the judicial arm of the Society (service dept.) are both doing the same then your comparison with China in this regard is lacking.
You wrote:
(2) No statements appear in private, elders-only Watchtower literature directing that they can [convict someone of molestation on the testimony of two witnesses to two separate molestation events.](3) One statement appears in the Flock book that in general cases of "sin", two witnesses to two separate events can be "considered". Just what "considered" means is not explained. The next statement says that such evidence may be used to establish guilt, but again no definite standards are given to establish just what may constitute sufficient evidence.
Your number 3 contradicts your number 2. Here is why:
On page 111 of the Flock book under the heading "What kind of evidence is acceptable?" is written,
"If there are two or three witnesses to the same kind of wrongdoing but each one is witness to a separate incident, their testimony can be considered. Such evidence may be used to establish guilt, but it is preferable to have two witnesses to the same occurrence of wrongdoing."
Those words are plain enough that, in the JW judiciary, the word of two witnesses of the same type of sin but on separate occasions is acceptable evidence, that is, it can be put into evidence by being heard and weighed, which is what "considered" means in context. Whether this type of evidence can determine guilt (which is the question!) is soundly answered in the affirmative. Whether evidence offered by these two witnesses is enough to determine guilt does, of course, depends upon the actual testimony. This type of testimony may establish guilt just as a confession may establish guilt (See preceding pars. on same page of Flock book.) Again, whether guilt of a serious offense is established depends upon what is actually confessed/testified to.
As for your quandary of what "may constitute sufficient evidence," the sentences are clear that the word of two witnesses of the same type sin but on separate occasions is sufficient evidence to establish guilt. On this issue there is no ambiguity as you later claim.
Since those words represent current direction for elders then your number 2 is false since they are private Watchtower literature directing that elders can convict someone of molestation on the testimony of two witnesses to two separate molestation events. Significantly, your upcoming number 4 comment serves somewhat as a public Watchtower statement to the same effect, which would then weaken your number 1 comment to the contrary.
You wrote:
(4) The only definite statements about two witnesses to two separate events of molestation appear in the November 1, 1995 Watchtower that dealt with the subject of repressed memories of child abuse. The article defined "repressed memories" essentially as memories that were forgotten for a period of time, and which then resurfaced an unspecified number of years later. The article specifically stated that two such witnesses are not sufficient evidence to convict someone of child molestation.
You are correct about the overall context of the comments in question, they are speaking of the controversial "repressed memories." It should be
noted that comments you allude to definitely are
not applied to the common direct memories that we all have and which the JW judiciary routinely accepts as valid testimony. Indeed all testimony accepted is of such typical memory! In the article, unlike "repressed memories," the typical memory is not deemed controversial in terms of validity. So, when the article directs that "
Even if more than one person "remembers" abuse by the same individual, the nature of these recalls is just too uncertain to base judicial decisions on them without other supporting evidence" it is not directing that the word of two witnesses with typical memories would not suffice as indicated in the Flock book.
Significantly the sentence in question begins with "Even if." This indicates that a policy exists that would otherwise accept the testimony of two witnesses of the same type sin on separate occasions, which undermines your number 1 comment. Indeed this happens all the time, oftentimes in cases of child molestation. It is not uncommon for an accused to have more than one victim make accusations of acts that happened 1-20 or 30 years ago and the person be disfellowshipped on that testimony even though it was of separate incidents. This also happens in cases of marital infidelity. It is not uncommon for a wife to suspect adultery and then one witness comes forward and testifies to that effect with the husband denying it. This is noted and later (even years later) if another witness comes forward and testifies to the man’s infidelity on a different occasion then the burden of proof has been met and the woman is free to remarry if she chooses. I know you are in contact with an ex-elder that disputes this information, but it is nevertheless true.
You wrote:
(5) In Kingdom Ministry Schools in 1994, elders were orally instructed that in cases of child sexual molestation, two witnesses to the same event were required to establish guilt. This cleared up the ambiguity in the Flock book.
I don’t know where you got that information from, but it is exactly opposite of what was said, or at least what was supposed to have been said. The school actually reiterated what was already in print in the Flock book. If anything otherwise were said then elders would have been instructed to make an annotation on that page of their books. No elder made such an annotation because none like it was given.
Actually, in writing, the idea of accepting the testimony of two witnesses to separate but similar acts goes back at least to 1977 where virtually the same instruction was provided in that year’s version of the Flock book. (See page 69) Besides that, since 1997/8 circuit overseers have covered this same information with congregational elder bodies and reaffirmed the same information.
Their was no ambiguity cleared up because there is no ambiguity as you claim.
(6) No statements appear in public Watchtower literature telling JWs in a positive way that reporting sexual abuse to secular authorities is desirable.
That is not true. The March 8th Awake of 1993 does make the recommendation that victims of rape (rape is sexual abuse!) should be encouraged to report the act to authorities. That article does not place a restriction on how long after the fact it can or should be thusly reported. It just says to make the report as soon as the victim is able to. In the case of children that could be years, and indeed that is the case! Furthermore, assertions that that recommendation is made to the exclusion of JW perpetrators are just plain absurd—there is no such exclusionary language in that article or anywhere else regarding such serious criminal offenses. Such an assertion (not that you made it) is no more than reading a conclusion into the text! In fact other articles point out that congregations will not protect someone from such exposure to criminal prosecuting authorities. Significantly, regarding the crime of sexual child molestation, your favored 1995 Watchtower article states, "A person who actually abuses a child sexually is a
rapist and should be viewed as such." (Page 27) So, if you want to go by Society policy, that means that such victims are actually encouraged by the Society to report their victimization to authorities because it is rape. How will elders find this material? The same way you and I did, of course.
You wrote:
The Society's policies clearly are designed to protect the Society first and foremost, first by meeting the bare minimum legal standard for each state or country, and then by allowing as many molesters as possible to remain hidden from public exposure.
Under the Society’s policies, if a person is substantively accused of child molestation then a judicial committee is formed and all sorts of hard questions will be asked of the accused. Beside that there is a record made regardless of whether the individual is proven guilty under the JW judiciary or not. Do you know what happens to that record? It remains in the congregations file permanently just in case it is needed for later judicial action. (om 145; BOE letters dated 9/20/84 and 7/20/98) If a person is found guilty of child molestation then besides whatever civil and criminal penalties might be levied at the behest of a victim or victims, as far as possible, they will be followed with the information to whatever congregation of JWs they ever move to. (BOE letter 3/14/97)
So, by design the Society’s policies do not allow "as many molesters as possible" to remain hidden from public exposure. Certainly the Society’s policies should be more proactive in the area of encouraging of reporting, but don’t overlook the fact that the JW judiciary is in addition to whatever other type of judicial review an offender might have to face. Certainly the JW judiciary provides more in the way of an internal investigation and action than probably most other religions do. This means that, in terms of shunning, the JW system is more aggressive than most others when child abusers are found out. Do you know another religion that, as a matter of policy, takes it upon itself to follow a member’s moves in order to send warning letters to other congregations about the individual?
LDH
The sister in question was abused, she had done no significant wrong. Do you hold it against victimized women that their husbands beat them? Those elders were completely right to leave pioneering (or not) up to her! If you think for one second that a wife living with a wife beater in reform should be somehow restricted from expressing her Christian spirit to the fullest extent possible then you are in a sad state!
As for how the husband recognized her room, he saw her. She was also the one that called the police, not the manager. Please read more carefully and get a grip on your accusations. You are beginning to sound as wild as Focus’.
Friend
PS Alan, I passed on your request. That is all I can responsibly do. You should know what I mean.
Edited by - Friend on 10 March 2001 0:54:36
