why won't legal department simply release all the secret pedophile files?

by poopie 94 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  _Morpheus

  Slim, your vastly overestimating “prominent elders”. Thats pure local politics. No such thing in the big picture of the org. And in order for this to have any significant impact the names or names being protected would have to be branch level.

  its very dicey legal ground. If they release lists of suspected pedo’s they also potentially release information regarding victims. They make it easy for 1+1 identity of victims who may not want that information made public.

  Bear in mind, as much as it wont be popular to say, these pedos are only suspected pedos, not convicted in a court of law. Of course one of the reasons they arnt convicted in court is due to wt pressure, so round and round we go. My end point being, It would be unconscionable to have potentially innocent people branded as pedo’s in the release of wt names. Cult star chamber proceedings are a joke as countless experiances show, many recorded right here on this forum. Just because someone was df for being a pedo dosent make it true. Which is exactly why the wt has no business investigating it...

  and as for the ARC... it was a toothless dog from the start. People are asking how the wt will respond.. by doing exactly nothing. Why would they??? The ARC has zero authority. None. The ARC can recommend all day and piss and moan and write reports and it amounts to nothing. They have zero authority to compel any change. Any good that comes from it will be as a result of publicity and the spot light that was shown.. but without legal teeth the wt is laughing.
• 

  Ding

  The sheer numbers of them would destroy the claim that the WT is "Jehovah's clean organization."
  
• 

  John Davis

  Morpheus: You are absolutely correct many of those individuals are not convicted of any crime. We even saw in Australia where the ARC sent reports to local authorities for investigation and prosecution, one was found to have been reported to the authorities decades ago but no charges were ever filed and another was acquited of the charges. In fact, if you go around telling people that someone is a paedophile and they have been acquitted of those charges you have just opened yourself up for a civil action.
• 

  _Morpheus

  John, please keep the totality of my statement in mind. I said the reason they arnt convicted is because the wt pressures members not to report the potential crimes. In the past there was HUGE pressure, up to and including being df’d for reporting. The direction from the org has softened on that but there is still a LOT of old school thinking on the matter still prevalent.

  Locally here in DC, a “sister” (a grown woman in her 40’s) assaulted a young woman (18 years old). The parents of the 18 year old called the police. A talk was given condemning them for calling the police. The old guard thinking is strong. Local cult leaders hold to the thinking not to impugn the cults reputation.

  John, dont ever mistake my pragmatic opinion on the situation as excuses or support for the org or org policy.
• 

  John Davis

  I am not suggesting that you are giving an excuse at all. I am agreeing with you that it is a complex matter and it isn't as simple as people think it is.
• 

  Finkelstein

  Maybe the focus should be on the "clergy class," the elders, ministerial servants and other titled members who abused their authority when it came to children.

  Why when everyone in a JW congregation is considered a wholesome righteous brother or sister ?
  

  In essence all baptized JWS who are good standing ie. publishers or Pioneers are a part of the working congregation.

  When it comes to child sexual abuse, there should be no exclusivity between ones working position which they might have in a JW congregation or church for that matter.
  
• 

  John Davis

  Even look at the ARC the ARC recognized that people have a privacy right so they reported on matters of the cases but removed names and identifying features. Same thing in the US in the San Diego cases the court recognizes that there are legitimate privacy concerns not just for the victims but even the accused that is why there are protective orders in place.
• 

  _Morpheus

  Fair enough john
• 

  Finkelstein

  When the top GB leaders of the JWS organization make the stern proclamation such as " One must not bring reproach onto Jehovah's organization/earthly arrangement " all JWs are vowed to uphold that social behavioral commandment/ doctrinal order.
  

  All JWS ! including Pioneers, MS, Elders, Co's and the GB members themselves.
  
• 

  Splash

  Fisherman if wt wanted to protect a perpetrator, why record the incident?

  It's an unintended consequence of their completely controlling nature.

  Of course they never anticipated having to share this information, but they count hours, lands, magazines printed, magazines placed, assembly attendances, ... it never ends. If WT can count something they will, even child abusers and their victims.

  The faithful slave has proven to be less than discreet.