Another important thing to remember is that this two witness rule comes from the same book that says the rapist's punishment is supposed to be to marry the girl he raped. Why aren't the Borg elders enforcing that part?
Is the two-witness rule really unreasonable?
by stillin 40 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
wwjdnwt
That pretty much sums up a Judicial hearing. Just saying...( JWdaughter) -
Vidiot
stillin - "Is the two-witness rule really unreasonable?"
Yes, in no small part because present-day forensic evidence collection has been demonstrated over and over again as vastly superior to eyewitness testimony.
The only reason two witnesses (giving corroborating testimony) was used in Biblical times was because forensic evidence collection simply didn't exist.
-
Lieu
Today it is as unreasonable as marrying your rapist. No ancient Hebrews around here following Mosaic Laws ... Besides ole Jezzy had two witnesses, and of course they were both liars. So, you know.
It's best to go straight to the police and let the law (forensics, dna, etc) do its job. Don't have your children farting around with religious types for comfort. They can read you scriptures AFTER the STD exams and charges are filed.
-
OnTheWayOut
If they want the two-witness rule as far as congregational matters go, that's fine. That doesn't stop them from assisting the victims to the police, standing by their side and making no judgments.
It would be far better to go with the court rulings instead of sticking with just the two-witness rule. A compromise would be to assist the victim to be strong and testify in court, then even without two witnesses, to tell the creep that is found guilty in a worldly court that, of course the congregations must know and of course he can't work with children. "But if you want to stand by your innocence, Jehovah will know the truth so what does a few restrictions really do to you?"
-
Lieu
I don't know of any rapists or child molesters who waited around to have an audience and/or witnesses.
I think it's pure STUPIDITY in these circumstances.
-
LisaRose
Nobody wants to see someone accused of such a thing if it's not true, but on the other hand child sex abuse is devastating to a child, that is why the situation must be evaluated by professionals. The JWs act as if there isn't two witnesses to the act nothing can be done, which is ridiculous.
A lot of things can be taken into consideration, the child can be evaluated by a psychologist who specializes in child abuse, other people in the family can be interviewed, the accused can be interviewed. That is why the authorities should be contacted no matter what. They have the experience and knowledge not to be taken in by the lies of the typical pedophile.
Even in cases where they don't have enough evidence to pursue a criminal case, the elders are not helpless to act. They have a great deal of authority in the congregation, so why don't they use it? They can put restrictions on the individual involved without revealing anything publicly. No contact with unrelated minors, no field service without an elder, etc. They can warn parents in the congregation that they need to be extra careful, admitting a pedophile is among them without revealing a name. But instead they continue to pretend it doesn't happen to them which allows pedophiles to continue to prey on the children in the congregations.
If there is proof or a confession they should be disfellowshipped no matter how sorry they act and only allowed back under very tight restrictions. And they should never, ever be an elder again, these are innocent children, you don't risk it.
-
wozza
The topic here is the very explanation an elder in the Burpengary North congregation Queensland Australia gave to me as to why the society does not act against pedos ....there might be only one supposed victim who lies (very rare) but at the sacrifice of thousands of true victims he said it was worth not acting against perpetrators because of the lying one ,I explained to him how disgusted I was with him and the society . -
azor
They have no business sitting in judgement of anyone. Judicial Committees should be abolished in there entirety and anyone that comes with any claim of abuse should be reported to the appropriate authorities. Anything short of that is criminal and should be dealt with appropriately. -
stillin
Some great answers here! I agree that "corroboration" is important, and in keeping with law, whether it is in the form of some forensic evidence or (certainly!) a confession. Legal experts conducting interviews rather than just local elders being "good oil' boys is way preferable. Erring on the side of caution is good, but not erring at all is better.
this brings up another related subject. False memories. Adults who started with only a seed of an idea and had it grow into a full-blown "memory" of having been molested as a child. This is a very real phenomenon. I listen to my wife tell an account from our shared past sometimes and realize that she fully believes that she is telling it as she remembers it, not embellishing, really remembering. But NOT accurately. Her testimony would probably hold up under any lie detector. The lie detector would "corroborate" her account, but both "witnesses" would be wrong.