Is the two-witness rule really unreasonable?

stillin

I'm picturing a situation in which a savvy 12 year old doesn't like the house rules that mom's new husband has put into place. Or something along that line.

I can certainly agree that protection of children is paramount, but who protects the real victim in those cases? I know of a man who refused to take a plea bargain in a case like this. He had done nothing, why should he compromise? He served 5 years In prison, the girl confessed when she was 18 and it took another year for him to be released.

kids sometimes simply don't understand the seriousness of their actions.

Mephis

Surely that's why such things should be passed to child protection agencies and the police as the default? They're equipped and trained to deal with these cases. The elders are not.

Just for the record and because it needs to be said, false accusations of child abuse by children are very rare. Very rare. In fact, the opposite is true. Children are much more likely to minimise what has happened to them, or even not to disclose at all.

I am a qualified secondary school teacher, and part of my training was that if a child came to me and even hinted that they had been abused that I should take it seriously and pass it to someone more qualified to help the child directly. I also had a responsibility to make sure appropriate agencies were informed. The one thing which is an absolute 'no' is to suggest in any way you fail to believe a child, because if they've found the strength to talk to you about something like this, then it's your responsibility as a sensible adult to make sure that they are safe and get help.

Lemonp

In theory it could be open to abuse by an accuser who has ill intent.

However in cases of child abuse, when 99% of victims are truthful, why punish 99% for the sake of a theoretical 1%?

And as said above, the police are in the best position to determine the validity of claims, NOT the Elders.

stillin

Sure, all that the elders are concerned about is the bad publicity. Lol!

i'm just saying that there doesn't seem to be any quietly determining the guilt in these cases. As soon as there is an accusation, the media pounces on it and somebody's reputation is flushed down the toilet.

Mephis, maybe your statistics are spot-on or maybe not. I just recently became aware of that man's plight. Maybe the authorities are more cautious in their handling of these things now than they were ten years ago. But the news media isn't! If anything, they absolutely salivate over juicy stories like those.

Everybody wants to punish a child molester.

_Morpheus

Of course its unreasonable. Who abuses a child with two witnesses present???? Who commits any crime in full view of witnesses?

99% of judicial cases avoid the stupidity of the two witness rule because people confess. Its a cult, they are indoctrinated and feel guilty and come forward. Two witness rule not needed. in cases of child abuse whos going to admit that?? Pedos don't confess.

Slidin Fast

There is an obvious conflict between the rights of the accused and those of the accuser in child abuse cases. It is also obvious that this conflict can never be perfectly resolved. In my book therefore way forward is that:

1.All accusations should be pursued by properly impartial, trained and qualified investigators and should therefore be reported to appropriate authorities. This should be handled as discreetly as possible to protect the innocent whether adult or minor.

2. It should be recognised that unqualified congregation elders do not have the expertise or moral authority to handle these matters.

3. It should be recognised that the balance of power between adults and children is skewed. The claims and concerns of the child should always be investigated as above without fear or favour.

johnamos

I am scared as a grown man to even tell/ask kids that are running around the pool area, etc… in my apartment complex to not run or drive/jump in the pool they way they do. If a kid now a day gets made at an adult all they have to do is make such a claim.

BTW, in the example above it is in regards to a step child but how about if your own sister and niece and brother in-law team up against you and claim you abused your niece in order to get money from you…this guy (Don Wallace) is a JW too.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/relatives-of-rv-king-don-wallace-plead-guilty-in-extortion-case/1022100

Saintbertholdt

Elders in congregations should advise all victims to report their cases to the authorities. They should follow up with the victims and their families on the status regularly. They should NOT take any child abuse cases BEFORE the authorities have not been notified and the investigation completed. Based upon the outcome of the secular investigations they can then make decisions regarding the accused standing. While the person is under investigation they should impose boundaries on the accused such as not having bible studies with minors and asking them to voluntarily suspend any congregational privileges (This should be voluntary and not an imposed suspension unless there is a clear indication of wrongdoing). Even if the authorities clear an individual, the elders could then still impose certain boundaries, such as not having bible studies with minors unless a second baptized witness is present or handing over those studies to another witness, if they feel uncertain. They should ask the accused to limit their interaction with minors in the congregational setting until they are cleared. It could be argued to the accused that it protects them, the congregation and the victims of child abuse.

Mephis

johnamos, that case is of adults making false allegations, not children. Even the niece herself, someone with a mental health problem, was 26 when she went to the police with her allegation - which was disproved by a DNA test.

bemused

Law enforcement agencies are well aware of the problem of false allegations. They have the expertise to assess that possibility, elders don't.

Is the two-witness rule really unreasonable?

Share this