Hello, Friend,
: Our views are not all that far apart. I don’t think Focus’ and mine are all that far apart either,
On the basics, I agree. In the details, well, you know. :-)
: 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 think that both of you are being rather too stubborn about that. I see both of you making certain points that the other will not acknowledge. To me, you're not acknowledging what I think Focus's main point ought to make explicit, which is that despite what the Society's paper policy says, in the minds of many JWs they have the idea that they ought not report crimes if reporting will "bring reproach on Jehovah's name". This force vector of "ought not" is translated into "must not", which is not as strong as "required not to".
These English words are confusing and some people capitalize on it. For example, the Internal Revenue Service instructs Americans that they "must" report their income, even though the Constitution's Fifth Amendment explicitly states that no one shall be required to "bear witness against himself", i.e., you don't have to tell the government anything about yourself if you don't want to. So the IRS never says, "You're required to report", since that could be challenged in court, but says "You must report" because "must" also has the archaic meaning of "may".
: 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.
Ok. These are extremely important points. They're important because the Society's intent in making and implementing its policies is shown by how clear it makes the policies and how consistent it causes elders to be in implementing them.
Intent can be established in a number of ways. I just posted some material on this forum and on H2O about the Society's practice of failing to provide full citations of source references in its 'scholarly' material. While in most languages, such as English, they don't provide full references, they do in the Italian language publications. Apparently Italy has some kind of rule about this, or the Society wouldn't do it. If they can do it in Italian -- even citing the English language references -- then their intent deliberately to hide the references from most readers is obvious.
So it is with the policies regarding child molestation. The erring in the direction you describe proves the Society's intent -- which is to keep molestation cases quiet so as to avoid adverse publicity for the Witnesses.
The only other reasonable intent would be deliberately to protect molesters, do you not agree?
I think it highly unlikely that most WTS policy makers want to protect molesters simply for the sake of protecting molesters, so I can come to only this one conclusion. And it is clear to objective observers that a policy that errs towards protecting an organization must also err against individuals.
: 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.
If there is ever any "effect of protecting perpetrators" at all, whether by design or by neglect, then there is simply nothing to argue: the policy by definition errs towards protecting perpetrators.
Again, the intent of those who actually put the words of the policies on paper are largely irrelevant. If the effect of their words and their actual implementation of their words by their instructions to the lower-level 'managers' who actually carry them out is to sometimes protect the bad guys, then the real policy has the effect of tending to protect the bad guys.
Conversely, if the policy tended to err on the side of the victims, then there would tend to be a few cases where errors are made to the disadvantage of alleged perpetrators.
In the experience of everyone who has so far seen fit to comment publicly, which tendency dominates? Does not this observation of how Watchtower policy works in actual practice prove my contention?
: 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.
Quite so. And it all boils down to a matter of opinion: at just what point does "some evidence" become weighty enough to become sufficient evidence to convict?
Many have concluded that, because of the secret and insidious nature of child molestation, and the mind games that molesters play with children, the "some evidence" should be a bit less stringent than for cases of crime against adults. The Society doesn't seem to understand this.
: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.
I agree that this is a hard problem. I agree that a person should not be convicted simply on the word of one accuser, adult or child. They should be convicted by any solidly established evidence. What "solidly established" means in practice is one thing we're discussing.
: 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.
It would certainly go a long way towards making the Witness organization less comfortable for molesters.
: 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.
I agree that this is a fuzzy issue. However, many cases prove that elders have actively discouraged reporting. Have they done that simply of their own initiative? Usually, not at all. What they've done is to take everything they've learned at the Society's hand and integrate it to come to an overall mindset of discouraging reporting so as to avoid "bringing reproach on Jehovah's name". Given that Watchtower leaders are well aware that these attitudes are common among elders, the fact that they haven't corrected such attitudes strongly suggests that they're happy with the situation. This, despite having made some noises that it's ok to report. Inaction is a very good indicator of intent.
: 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.
We're not just talking about what the Service department does, but about what the Society's entire "judicial arm" does. This "arm" includes all elders, since they are explicitly appointed by the Society to be its local representatives in matters of 'congregational justice'. Since it is demonstrable that elders, and even the Service department, often act inconsistently from case to case and in different parts of the world, it follows that there a number of sets of rules that these people are following, or at least think they're following. To contradict this would be to claim that the elders who act inconsistently are deliberately ignoring Society policy. While this certainly happens, it is clear to anyone who knows Jehovah's Witnesses that most elders would be horrified to be accused of doing that.
Therefore my basic comparison -- that China and the Watchtower operate on "two sets of rules" -- remains valid. And as I explained, my comparison is much more general than just to this area of handling child molestation.
Now we get to the numbered points I made. One was this:
[blockquote][hr]
(1) No statements appear in public Watchtower literature directing that elders can convict someone of molestation on the testimony of two witnesses to two separate molestation events. [hr][/blockquote]
I take it you agree with this statement.
This fact immediately raises an important question: If the Society feels, as you claim, that it is permissible to convict someone of child molestation based on such testimony, then why is this fact hidden from the rank and file of Jehovah's Witnesses? Would it not be good for the protection of children if the parents (non-elders, of course) were clearly informed of this? And isn't it clear that if such parents were so informed, they would be significantly more likely to compare notes with other parents to see if the molester of their child also molested other children? So why do you suppose this information is kept eyes-only for elders?
: You wrote:
[blockquote][hr] (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. [hr][/blockquote]
: 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.
Good points. I fouled up by not writing clearly what I meant. What I meant is different from what I actually said. I meant: No statements appear in private, elders-only Watchtower literature directing that they are required to convict someone of molestation on the testimony of two witnesses to two separate molestation events.
Indeed, the Flock book allows such evidence to be considered, but that simply means that they can use it or not, as they please, to convict. This is quite different from evidence from two or more eyewitnesses to the same event, which is much stronger in the minds of all Jehovah's Witnesses because this is discussed at length in publicly available literature. Indeed, the notion that "at the mouth of two or three witnesses let every matter be established" is so ingrained in JW thinking that it is quite unclear to most JWs how to deal with marginal cases like having two witnesses to separate incidents. This is emphasized by the statement you quoted: "It is preferable to have two witnesses to the same occurrence of wrongdoing." That goes without saying. I think that in the case of child molestation, where the tradition has been to keep things quiet and in-house, this is a way of "poisoning the well" -- making it significantly less likely that the testimony of two such witnesses will be accepted.
It's clear to anyone who has been a JW that elders are required to convict someone of a sin on the basis of two or more witnesses to that sin. The Flock books makes it optional to convict someone on the basis of two or more witnesses to separate events. That is what I meant to convey in my first post.
: 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.
There is indeed ambiguity, as I hope I've clearly conveyed. This ambiguity is demonstrable, although I'm not going to go into details of actual cases at this time. Let me give you an example and you tell me how the Society's Service and/or Legal departments would direct elders to handle it. There was a case in Woodland, Washington about five years ago where a JW man was arrested for and confessed to molesting 35 boys over a 20 year period in congregations in his area. I assume that the molester was convicted and imprisoned but I lost track of the case. Now just suppose that the man, instead of confessing, was convicted in court on the testimony of, say, five of his victims. Would local elders be required to convict this man in a JW judicial proceeding? Or would they have the option of saying, "Well, we don't have the required two or three witnesses so there's nothing we can do"?
: 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.
I'll appreciate your comments on my revision of number 2.
: 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:
[blockquote][hr] (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. [hr][/blockquote]
: 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.
This article is, in my view, an example of how the Society manages to poison the well without being able to be held accountable. Back in 1995 when the article first came out, I and a number of critics were aghast at what it said. We argued vehemently with certain JW-defenders, including a particular elder, that it allowed for virtually all memories of abuse to be classed as "repressed memories" and dismissed. When the January 1, 1997 WT article came out instructing that "known molesters" could never serve in positions of congregational responsibility, many of us saw this as a reversal of the position not-quite-stated in the November 1, 1995 WT. How do you suppose we all came to these conclusions? Do you think we just made them up? Or were they the product of knowing how to read between the lines and figure out exactly what the Society really means?
You know very well how the Society operates. One can claim that technically the Society never told young men not to join the military, but those who were disfellowshipped for doing it know different. One can claim that technically the Society never told young JWs not to go to college, and in a certain sense one would be right. But we who followed the Society's non-advice know different. When in 1992 the Society reversed its non-policy of advising against going to college, was there an explicit statement of reversal? Of course not, because there never was an explicit statement of such a policy to begin with. So all that needed to be done to reverse the non-policy was tell JWs in that article that they shouldn't judge those parents who allowed their children to go to college. And viola! No more non-policy.
The fact is that the 1995 WT article contains statements that can be used to dismiss virtually any charges of remembered child molestation. Just how long should a memory be forgotten to be classified as repressed? 30 years? 20? 5? 1? Six months? Six weeks? The article doesn't say, and so it gives free rein to elders to figure it out for themselves.
Suppose a girl was molested from infancy to age ten. Suppose she never forgot the molestation, but simply put it aside. At age 25 she decides to report the molestation to elders. What will the elders do? Will they pull out the 1995 WT article and say, "Oh, those are just repressed memories! We can do nothing." Suppose the woman talks to a girlfriend, who also "directly" remembers molestation by the same villain around the same time 15-25 years earlier. Suppose this woman now reports the molestation to the same elders. What will the elders do? What standard would they apply to decide whether the women's memories are "direct" or "repressed"? I think the answer is clear: the women would be told, "You have repressed memories. It's all very sad, but we can do nothing".
: 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.
I have no doubt that there are such cases. But combine them with the cases that were mishandled and what have we got? A fuzzy policy that tends to err on the side of the perpetrator. Note well that this is a tendency not a hard and fast rule.
That "even if" doesn't undermine my comment 1 at all. In fact, it underscores it, because if there really is the policy you've claimed and it really does act the way you claim, then it is all the stranger that no explicit public statements along the lines mentioned in comment 1 exist. The most you can say is that publicly and privately stated policies don't match.
: 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 that this happens and I see it as another illustration of double standards at work. The Society has traditionally been very concerned with various forms of adultery, and this concern is reflected in the many WT articles about it. Judging by the number of Watchtower articles that encourage proactive reporting of adultery, compared to the number encouraging proactive reporting of child molestation, I think that everyone can see where the Society's priorities lie.
: I know you are in contact with an ex-elder that disputes this information, but it is nevertheless true.
Again, I think that both things are true, since there is enough ambiguity in Society tradition and written policy that widely different interpretations are possible of any given child abuse situation.
: You wrote:
[blockquote][hr] (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. [hr][/blockquote]
: 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.
Not having been there myself, I'm only reporting what several have told me. I asked about this, but they were quite sure that they heard right.
That's the trouble with the way the Society does business with elders. So much is secret or highly confidential. The BOE letters are often marked "CONFIDENTIAL" and no copies are supposed to be made. A lot of important material is given orally and supposed to be written down in the margins of the Flock book. The system is virtually designed for misunderstanding. Given the Society's good organizational skills in other areas, I can only conclude that they want it this way so as to make it difficult to be pinned down. But by protecting themselves, they have done a grave disservice to their 'flock'.
: 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.
I'll attempt to verify this through other channels. Meanwhile, without some kind of written documentation, I don't quite trust your comments as fully representative of what has been said. I've noted below that you didn't refer to some of the most important material in BOE letters on protecting known molesters from exposure when they move congregations.
[blockquote][hr] (6) No statements appear in public Watchtower literature telling JWs in a positive way that reporting sexual abuse to secular authorities is desirable. [hr][/blockquote]
: That is not true. The March 8th Awake of 1993 does make the recommendation that victims of rape (rape is sexual abuse!)
Come on, Friend. We've been over this before. You're making this sort of logical error:
Good citizens are required to report murder to the police.
Murder is a crime.
Changing lanes without signaling is a crime.
Therefore good citizens must be required to report bad signalers to the police.
What's wrong with that logic is the same as what's wrong with your logic.
Rape is just one of many forms of child abuse. Furthermore, according to the laws of many states, rape implies violence, and most child molestation is not violent. Indeed, the molester often gains the confidence and even cooperation of his victim. The Awake! article says nothing whatsoever about such situations.
Any intelligent reader can see that the Awake! article on rape is oriented towards the violent rape of adult or near-adult women. It has nothing to do with non-violent molestation of a child. Proofs:
(1) The title of the series is "Rape: A Woman's Nightmare".
(2) The introductory comments on page 2 ask, "What can women do to avoid rape?"
(3) The introductory paragraph on page 3 states that in the time it takes a reader to read that page, a woman "will be terrorized by an act of violence and degradation".
(4) The 2nd paragraph on page 3 states, "Rape is the fastest growing violent crime in the United States."
(5) Paragraph 5 on page 3 comments on attitudes that result in the increase of rape: "Such violent and aggressive attitudes ..."
(6) Paragraph 4 on page 4 states "that rape is a senseless act of violence that can happen to anybody".
(7) Paragraph 6 on page 5 states: "Rape is an act of violence. Men rape, not solely for sex, but to feel power over another person." (Think of a father performing oral sex on his infant son and tell me if he's doing it for sexual or violent purposes.)
(8) Paragraph 10 on page 5 states that rape involves violence: "False reports of rape occur at the same rates as for any other violent crime."
(9) The entire 2nd article in the series, "How to Prevent Rape", tells adult women how to avoid rape-prone situations.
(10) Paragraph 1 on page 6 states: "Rape is a growing threat, and a woman's best defense is to be aware and prepared." Can a year-old infant be aware and prepared?
(11) Paragraph 2 on page 6 states: "The best way to avoid a rape situation is to avoid rapists." How can a year-old infant avoid being in the same house with her pedophile father?
(12) Paragraph 1 on page 8 states: "Fighting back can be difficult for women because they have been conditioned for a lifetime to be polite, passive, and submissive even when threatened by physical force. Therefore, you need to decide ahead of time that you will resist." Does that sound like a description of what a child could do, or of advice for dealing with a child molester?
(13) The entire 3rd article in the series, "How to Cope With Rape", tells adult women how to cope with rape.
(14) Paragraph 2 in that article on page 8 states: "Since she was hurt by someone she trusted, she is also more likely to blame herself and to doubt her ability to judge others." Does that sound like advice applicable for an abused infant?
(15) The sidebox titled "If You Are Raped" on page 9 gives advice explicitly designed for adult women not for children or the guardians of abused children. The advice is decidedly not applicable to molestation that comes to light years after the event.
(16) The 3rd article has subsections titled "Coping With Fear and Depression" and "Redirecting Anger". Clearly these have nothing to do with the molestation of a small child.
This Awake! article is nowhere referenced in the Society's "Publication Indexes" under the topic "Child Abuse" or anything like that. Therefore anyone researching the topic "child abuse" will not find the article listed as a resource.
The various letters to bodies of elders having to do with child molestion pointedly contain no references to this Awake! article. The reason is obvious: the Society does not consider your application valid.
The laws of many states don't consider many forms of child sexual abuse to be rape, because they define rape as violent sexual assault. If a pedophile grandfather inserts his fingers into the vagina of his year-old granddaughter, in Colorado he'd be charged with "sexual assault on a minor" and not with rape. So in Colorado, elders researching what to do with a "digital rapist" would find nothing in the Society's literature telling them in a positive way to report that sexual abuse. They would not be required either by state law or by anything in Watchtower literature to consider such "fondling" as rape.
If you disagree with my assessment, then by all means show where in any Watchtower publications general sexual molestion, including "fondling", is equated with "rape".
: 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!
I'm sure that in some cases, enlightened elders have taken it upon themselves to apply that article as you've said, but we're talking about general Watchtower policy here, not isolated instances where the policy was skirted around. I already told you that one elder I contacted had no conception that this article could be applied to general child molestation. That's because the Society itself, as proved by the lack of references to it in various Indexes, doesn't apply it that way.
: 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!
I know nothing of anyone making an assertion that JW perps should be excluded. But whether someone did or not is irrelevant. The article is pointedly not about child molestation, but about violent rape of adult children. It is entirely irrelevant to discussions of child molestation.
: In fact other articles point out that congregations will not protect someone from such exposure to criminal prosecuting authorities.
That's a Good Thing! I should point out that this is a very new policy.
: 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)
The writer, as I have demonstrated, is wrong and is obviously merely expressing his opinion. Whether sexual abuse is classified as rape depends on the state or country in which the abuse was committed, and the Society has certainly never given a clear exposition.
The fact is that the 1985-1995 Publications Index has no references to that article under the subject "rape". And under "child abuse, sexual abuse" that Index has no entries for rape that reference that article. Therefore no elder researching our topic will find "rape" and "sexual abuse" equated. The WT-CDROM hardly counts because the Society knows that the bulk of the world's elders don't have computers, but they do have the printed Indexes. I doubt that any letters to bodies of elders say what you're claiming about sexual abuse and rape. You could verify that and post your comments.
: 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.
I've shown that this is decidedly not Society policy. It may be that various people are now trying to claim -- after the fact -- that one can get such ideas out of the material you've presented, but that's a real stretch.
: How will elders find this material? The same way you and I did, of course.
Not hardly. We happen to be particularly close to the situation. And again, as I've told you, my contact with certain otherwise fine elders showed that they had no idea at all, other than "call Service", what to do about a case of child molestation or how to go about researching it in Society publications.
: You wrote:
[blockquote][hr] 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. [hr][/blockquote]
: 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)
All well and good, but irrelevent to my point, as I will show.
: So, by design the Society’s policies do not allow "as many molesters as possible" to remain hidden from public exposure.
Indeed they do. When those records follow molestors around, elders are explicitly disallowed from telling anyone except other elders about the abuser. The only thing that elders are allowed to do publicly is to tell parents whose children appear to be getting too close to the abuser to keep their children away from the abuser, but this is supposed to be done in such a way as to avoid telling just why the parents should keep them away. Some parents will get the message but others won't pay much attention unless they know exactly why they're being requested to do it. When only elders know about the presence of a molester, because of confidentiality requirements, that is decidedly not public exposure. Indeed, due to "ecclesiastical privilege" such knowledge is by definition "privileged" and non-public. This is all proved by the BOE letter dated 3/14/97 (p. 2):
[blockquote] What should elders do whan a former child molester moves to another congregation? ... our policy is always to send a letter of introduction when a publisher moves to another congregation... [b]Any needed cautions should be provided to the new congregation's body of elders. This letter should not be read to or discussed with the congregation.
The absolutely secret nature of the information quoted above is emphasized by the closing "P.S." in the 3/14/97 BOE letter:
[blockquote] Elders should not discuss this information with others. It is provided so that you can appropriately apply the spirit of the Scriptural information in the January 1, 1997 Watchtower article "Let Us Abhor What Is Wicked." [/blockquote]
If the Society has nothing to hide about its policies on child molestation, then why such secrecy? This secrecy, as far as I'm concerned, is absolute proof of my comment 6.
The fact that some elders have enough sense to sidestep the Society's policy on confidentiality is beside the point.
: 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.
Yes, assuming the person has reported to authorities at all, which we have seen is either not encouraged by the Society (except in the case of out and out rape of an adult), or is actively discouraged by many JWs who are acting in accord with Society tradition.
: 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?
Not being very familiar with the internal workings of other religions, my opinion wouldn't be worth much. What I can say is that I have enough detailed knowledge of specific cases to say that the Society's system failed those people, and I keep hearing more and more about other cases that only confirm it.
I think that it's a case not terribly different from what got the Catholic Church in hot water. No one is going to accuse the Church of actively supporting child molesters. But they certainly have been validly convicted of putting Church interests first and victims' interests second. They did this by covering up abuse and by reassigning abusive priests to new parishes and failing to warn parishioners about the abusers. This is particularly odious in the Church's case because the priest is the head honcho in a parish. But it's not all that different when an abusive JW moves around and the congregation is not informed of his predatious tendencies. And remember -- it was only in 1997 and only after a good deal of internal wrangling -- over and above the objections of certain odious JW leaders -- that the Society finally decided not to allow molesters positions of responsibility. So really, how much better is the JW organization than the Catholic Church in this regard?
: PS Alan, I passed on your request. That is all I can responsibly do. You should know what I mean.
Fair enough. I promise to take my teeth out.
AlanF