by stuckinarut2 46 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
As far as the Org's leadership is concerned, they simply can't drop the two-witness rule.
It's a vital component of keeping a lid on how endemic and institutionalized the problem is, and thusly keeping the R&F from suspecting that JWs might not actually have "The Truth".
Mandatory reporting to the police isn't law in the UK so that's not going to happen here.
Then the real problem is NOT with WT Policy. It is with UK Laws. WT thinks they have an obligation to maintain "confidentiality".
Quit bitching about the WT Leaders and call your governmental representative or start a petition.
Same goes for anyone who lives in a US State that does not have mandatory reporting for "clergy".
stukinarut2
Scroll over the web site or address of the article you want to share...... it's way up top of the page you want to show us......... example on this page:
When you scroll over it it turns blue or some different color.
You capture it by pressing Control (CTRL) and the letter C on your keyboard.
Then you come over to your Have your say box on this site or New Topic site
And you bring it with you by Holding down Control again and this time pressing V and it will appear.
Yeah, they 'endeavor to comply,' and that's a lot different than just 'they comply.' Weasel words indeed Xianthippe.
Tantalum, could not say it better myself. Dial 911, tell them a kid says someone molested them, cooperate with the cops. How hard is that? But they don't wanna 'bring reproach on Jehovah's name,' which is just code for Look bad to outsiders.
DesirousOfChange:Then the real problem is NOT with WT Policy. It is with UK Laws. WT thinks they have an obligation to maintain "confidentiality".
IT IS mandatory in Quebec, Canada and they don't report it. It is mandatory in Minnesota, USA, yet, a recent court case demonstrates that they did not comply. Instead, they see the law and challenge it, arguing that, in their situation, what ever it was, they did not have to comply. When police ask for records in the kingdom hall, they flat out refuse to collaborate. And when a Judge orders them to deliver their Database and documents concerning the pedophiles they have identified, they rather pay a 4K daily fine than comply.
Should the Christian who reported it feel that he has brought reproach on God’s name? No.The abuser is the one who brings reproach on God’s name. - Part 3, Parag. 14.
On a positive note, this is the first article that I see where it is perfectly clear that christiens can report to the police without fearing having brought reproach upon God's name. This is actually a progress. Its not perfect, but certainly better than ever before.
I agree........ they are bending so as not to break. No real concern of the SIN crime of sexual child abuse.
Shows the crucial role of ongoing negative publicity about JW's appalling child-protection policies which reached a crescendo with Leah Remini's show last November.
With all the hate for the 2 witness rule, why can't anyone explain why it is bad?
Jehovah put that in the Law along with the 9th commandment because he knew that humans both lie to hurt others and make mistakes in their facts, which hurt others.
And that is not limited to the Bible.
In criminal law Blackstone's ratio is the idea that:
It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.John Adams also expanded upon the rationale behind Blackstone's Ratio when he stated:
It is of more importance to the community that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt should be punished; for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world, that all of them cannot be punished....when innocence itself, is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, 'it is immaterial to me whether I behave well or ill, for virtue itself is no security.' And if such a sentiment as this were to take hold in the mind of the subject that would be the end of all security whatsoever
As he said, what is the point of being a good person if the accusation of one person can ruin everything?
I've always felt that there's nothing wrong with the 2 witness rule itself per se. The problem is that unqualified individuals are handling something that they shouldn't to begin with, and then if there aren't 2 witnesses they don't take it seriously. They should simply recuse themselves from hearing any such accusation and immediately ENCOURAGE (which isn't the same as "we do not discourage") people to take the matter to the proper authorities. This isn't even hard.
Instead, it is all about control with the cult. They need you to need them. They need you to bring everything to them to exert dominance. Then once you do they have standards above what could likely be met and history shows that over and over they actually have discouraged people from going to the proper authorities. The whole thing is a mess.
I do agree that you can't just run with and condemn people based on accusations, but the proper authorities have training on how to handle such matters and know what evidence to gather. Many elders are morons and should never be handling such matters. They certainly should never be handling them in the deplorable manner that many do, asking horrifically sensitive questions as people unqualified to deal with the answers.
The whole thing is simply inappropriate. I do agree that a focus on the 2 witness rule itself is probably a focus in the wrong direction. However, it's also erroneous to simplify the 2 witness rule to the base rule itself and to ignore everything that its existence within the cult entails.
