cattails What I picked up from WOZZA was there only being one witness, the victim necessary for judgment to be passed. If the 'two witness rule' was applied there would need to be a second witness in order for the judgment of vs 25 to have been passed.
The JW's 2 witness rule applied to Molestation is wrong AND HERE'S WHY
by wozza 17 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
-
-
Vidiot
wozza - "The point is though is vs 25-27 which shows that the girl is raped in the open field with no-one to cry out to but the man is still put to death and the event must be revealed by her, the only witness, and then he is judged to die. NO 2 WITNESSES HERE !!!"
I'd realized that a while back, too.
I'm imagining a JW loyalist trying to defend the two-witness rule faced with this plain-language slam-dunk, and trying to deal with it in his head...
...I imagine the outcome looking something like this:
xxxxxxxxxxx
x
I think the two-witness rule - as it was originally applied - had more to do with cases of fraud that any kind of assault.
-
wozza
I would like to bump this back again for the new ones here to reason on.
Wozza
-
Bill Covert
I have used your workmanship in my own project in Redding Calif. I was very impressed as to how important this played in ARC. Very Impressed
-
scary21
From what I remember wasn't this brought up at ARC ? I can't remember their response.
-
Listener
HQ put together a written response, signed by Jackson and included their reasoning on this. During the hearing Jackson said it was something he would like to ask Jesus about (or something to that effect).
Issue 3: Exp!anation of Deuteronomy 12:25-27
15. At TJ5970-15974, Counsel Assisting suggested that the requirement of at least two witnesses in relation to cases of sexual abuse had no proper Scriptural foundation, relying upon references to Deuteronomy 22:25-27 to support this proposition.
16. While these verses might appear to be an exception to the Scriptural requirement that there be at least two witnesses to establish a matter, that is not a correct reading of the passages.
17. Five chapters earlier, at Deuteronomy 17:6, the Mosaic Law clearly states without exception: "On the testimony of two witnesses or of three witnesses the one who is to die should be put to death. He must not be put to death on the testimony of one witness." And in Deuteronomy chapter 19, verse 15, it says: "No single witness may convict another for any error or any sin that he may commit. On the testimony of two witnesses or on the testimony of three witnesses the matter should be established. "
18. It is important to note that the two contrasting situations in verses 23 to 27 of Deuteronomy chapter 22 do not deal with proving whether the man is guilty in either situation. His guilt is assumed in both instances. In saying that he: "happened to meet her in the city and lay down with her" or he: "happened to meet the engaged girl in the.field and the man overpowered her and lay down with her ". in both instances, the man had already been proved guilty and worthy of death, this being determined by proper procedure earlier in the judges' inquiry. But the question at this point before the judges (having established that improper sexual relations had occurred between the man and the woman) was whether the engaged woman had been guilty of immorality or was a victim ofrape. This is a different issue, although related, to establishing the man 's guilt.
19. The elders had guidance in determining if any guilt should be charged to her. In the second instance (verse 27), the woman would not die, "for he happened to meet her in the field, and the engaged girl screamed, but there was no one to rescue her". Such a cry for help might be admitted by her assailant, which would confirm her claimed innocence. On the other hand, if the assailant denied that the woman had screamed for help, the judges would not have a basis for refusing her claim, since, in effect, it would be her word against his and there was no one nearby either to rescue her or to serve as a witness one way or the other as to her scream for help. Thus, the judges would not have a basis for taking any action against her because any claim contrary to her professed innocence could not be established by two or more witnesses. The woman, as claimed, would be judged innocent. In that case (verses 25 and 26), "the man who lay down with her is to die by himself. and you must do nothing to the girl. " This is because (verses 26 and 27): "{t}he girl has not committed a sin deserving of death. This case is the same as when a man attacks his f ellow man and murders him. For he happened to meet her in the field, and the engaged girl screamed, but there was no one to rescue her. "
20. So it is not as though the woman at this point in the inquiry is seeking to prove the man's guilt and finds herself as the only witness against him. However, it is of interest that the raping of a woman is said to be "the same as when a man attacks his fellow man and murders him." (Deuteronomy 22:26) Thus, the crime of rape is made parallel to murder, equated not only as to reprehensibility but also evidently as to being established by the same Scriptural rules of evidence, which included having the testimony of two witnesses (Numbers 35:30).
21. Understandably, there is concern in child abuse situations because there is seldom an additional eyewitness to such a crime. Even in those circumstances, the Christian congregation does not ignore the accusation. I refer the Royal Commission to the testimony of Mr Rodney Spinks of the Service Department in which he set out the further protective steps which are taken following an allegation. In addition, in those jurisdictions with mandatory reporting, elders would be required to report accusations regardless of the number of eyewitnesses. -
wozza
Thanks for the responses ,and Listener in regards to the WTS response that you kindly posted it is plain to me that this was a carefully compiled response by those led by lawyers and not by the holy spirit as the GB would have us believe.
I'm looking at many points which are just so wrong about their argument ,but they say at point 18. "His guilt is assumed in both instances." which is so misleading ,put that into todays cases of child molestation that the JWs handle ,I find it unlikely that the elders would just assume the perpetrators guilt , they would try to find out what had happened .
By making statements like this is trying to lead the reader into their assumption to qualify their position .
The fact is they can't lawyer away what is written in Deut: ,here they are saying he is guilty by the fact that the Judges had established improper sexual relations had occurred ,BUT THEY DO NOT STATE HOW THIS WAS ESTABLISHED ! If it was only established by what the girl said then it is by ONE witness !
But if the man admitted immediately his guilt there are two witnesses ,maybe the WTS is trying to make readers believe the judges did a vaginal inspection for seminal fluid ,who knows ? In their court reply they don't say of course how they know this transpired ,they just make a misleading statement.
Like the typically circular reasoning they have used for a long time it seems they are the scriptures can't be inconsistent because god wrote them as if that was a way to explain the bibles anomalies.
There are other wrong things in their ARC response but others may like to comment as well ,I bumped this to help people put closure in their hearts to the disgusting way the WTS has handled molestation cases and their unloving way they treat the people in the org ,I was one of the many that dealt with the WTS over this for many years with my ex wife and seen what damage was added to her load by the way they treated her (for instance one elder said to us they can't act in these cases as out of every 100 cases their might be 1 guiltless perpetrator!)
This statement then lays doubt on every victim of child abuse.
When I was a young child I was not brought up in a JW family ,but was sexually abused by my mother for years , this so weakened me that around 11 I was coerced to a car taken away and raped in scrub and left to find my way home. I kept these secrets from my father as I feared it would hurt him somehow, many years later as an adult I told him.
As an adult one of the reasons I became a JW was to find peace from a harsh world where I imagined these things don't happen ,as it turned out over the years I found out what the WTS really is thru helping my ex wife who was molested by her elder father for years .
I went back over WTS history from different sources that were'nt available to me before the internet ,and here I stand.
-
Confusedandangry
@Wozza im so sorry for what you went through, thank you for sharing a part of your story. My spouse and I were discussing this passage in Deut 22 recently & he defends the 2 witness rule. He says it was a direct individual law that would not need the 2 witness rule. And that the fact that it was specific in this case indicates that it didn't rely on the 2 witness rule. Um what?? How can they even apply this to child abuse victims? I get so frustrated trying to reason with him.