If laws were passed compelling the church to report crimes to government authorities and there was no legal way around it and the church was forced to comply and did comply, nobody would confess their sins. It wouldn’t stop people from committing crimes, they just wouldn’t tell their church about it.
Should laws be passed compelling the church to report crimes?
by Fisherman 16 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Smiles
@Fisherman... Seriously?
Are you playing devil's advocate, or are you just ignorant?
Perpetrators rarely self-report!
Victims, witnesses and whistleblowers very often DO report, and such reports are well outside of communications protected by clergy/penitent privilege. Therefore, serious accusations of criminality should be promptly forwarded to secular authorities for expert investigation.
Compelling the institutions to forward accusations of criminal behavior to prosecutorial authorities may deter false accusers, yet prompt an actual perpetrator to better cooperate with secular investigation.
A truly remorseful perpetrator willing to secretly confess to churchy officials should likewise be willing to face up to secular officials and the full force of law.
If a confessed perpetrator wants the church to shield him from secular prosecution, was it really a sincere confession?
Is a secret & shielded confession true remorse? No.
- Secret church confessions do not facilitate restitution for the victim(s)!
- Secret church confessions do not adequately protect society, nor prevent future victimisations.
- Secret church confessions do not force perpetrators into expert monitored rehab systems.
Any institution, religious or otherwise, receiving reports from victims, eyewitnesses or whistleblowers, particularly in regard to crimes upon vulnerable persons, should mandatorily forward such reports to secular enforcement authorities for further investigation/prosecution.
Whether or not a perp feels comfy confessing to some religious charlatan is irrelevant.
-
Fisherman
Smiles
How is asking for a view on an issue and explaining the tension on the issue being ignorant or playing devils advocate? Shoe is on the other foot.
Catholic church would need to start reporting crimes heard at confession.
The latest WT mag proclaimed that the congregation will not shield criminals —so watch out from now on. But it really depends on the government on the Federal level to repeal laws that protect penitent communications, then there will be no legal basis not to report. Then pass compulsory reporting laws. Then also force your wife, your friends, your siblings, sons, fathers, mothers to report crimes to the authorities as well. Your lawyer too.
There are mandatory reporting laws however in place at the State level that protect children but it is up to the government to enforce those laws. But children is not directly the focal point of this topic. It’s crimes in general.
-
Smiles
Curious how you defend your own questions yet insufferably evade questions directed to you elsewhere in this forum.
Maybe you should have become a priest instead of a fisherman.
-
smiddy3
I`m confused with this post ?
Is Smiles actually agreeing with Fisherman`s post ? Yet challenging him ?
Am I missing something here ?
-
joao
No. Smiles doesn't agree with Fisherman. He is telling him that he (Fisherman) is doing the devil's work by defending religious policies that protect thousands of criminals of all sorts around the word while making the victims suffer even more. He is also telling him that he doesn't like answering serious questions by using several technics that JWs love using to avoid fair and honest debate.
-
Fisherman
defending religious policies that protect thousands of criminals
How am I defending religious policies?
-
Fisherman
Some people may not like this but in Court feelings don't matter. It is not relevant. The only issue is law. People aren’t smart enough to realize this so they get angry and feel that Courts should enforce their feelings. While people have a right to get angry, the government does not enforce feelings. For example, in the US there exists this piece of paper called the US constitution which protects the rights of criminals ( and everybody else ). For example, the 4th amendment protects the privacy of criminal s and police and other agencies have to swear an oath to defend the constitution which means protecting the rights of criminals. A lot of people may not like and fight against and get angry at the constitution and those that defend it but it is the law. A lot of people get angry at laws that protect the rights of criminals ( and they have a right to get angry but tough bananas ) for example, if you set a booby trap for a criminal and injure him while he is committing a crime on your property, you can get prosecuted because the law protects tte rights of criminals. This is just one example. Lawyers protect and defends millions of criminals even to the point of setting them free sometimes all of the time. Some States have a no bail no jail policy letting criminals go free. You don’t like it and you get angry about it too bad. Want something to be done about it legally, the law needs to be changed.
-
truth_b_known
Where I live, failure to report a felony is a crime punishable up to one year in the county jail. There are no provisions in this law that exclude any person. All child abuse crimes are also felonies where I live.
So, it's not a matter of if it should or not, but why isn't this way everywhere?
-
Fisherman
So, it's not a matter of if it should or not, but why isn't this way everywhere?
Because of how Federal laws are interpreted by lawmakers in your jurisdiction. I answered this in my previous post. Federal laws would need to be changed. Some people want to get rid of the constitution altogether. Take for example the new abo&tion Scotus decision which says that it ain’t protected by Federal law and leaves it up to each State. A lot of people are angry about this and many States want to accommodate opposers even though the act of ab&rtion is illegal in their State so they can circumvent State law in the State where abo&tion is illegal. A lot people like evading the law of their jurisdiction arguing that it is legal to do so by going to another State and getting an ab&rtion while living in a State where it is illegal. But some people don’t like this.