What was the reason for df ing the 14 year old, did they say?
Deleware child abuse case major implications
by poopie 29 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
poopie
Just pdf the case read the actual court documents. -
-
Sugar Shane
Right you are Poopie. Add to that, the Carholics don't use the confessional as an enforcement tool to kick people out, as the JWs do. So the statement by the elders, that both victim and perp approached them privately, to seek counsel, is such a boldface lie.
I'm quite certain that the Shepard of the Flock book contains this language, which would be self-incriminating, IMO.
I'd assume the judge, or the AG in the Delaware case have access to the 'Flock' book and other materials. If not, someone needs to email them a copy ASAP, along with references to the DF procedures.
That seemed to be the case with the ARC: people submitting materials & info to Mr. Young and McClellan while the hearings were in progress. The email is mightier than the sword.
I'd do it myself, but I'm pretty busy working this weekend. Plus, as a non-JW, I don't have the knowledge of that book as some of you do.
-
carla
I hope this makes national news but won't hold my breath. -
Truthexplorer
So........a grown adult manipulates a young lad into a sexual relationship. The elders dont report this to the authorities and instead keep it in house. They then mete out THEIR justice by disfellowship both the abuser and the victim ie a young 14 year old lad? Incredible!!!!! -
the girl next door
The court recognized the issues of constitutional conflict when disregarding WT's clergy/penitent claim and denied their motion to dismiss anyway. This is a key case to watch as it climbs through the court. Clergy/penitent privilege has more sway that even attorney/client, doctor/patient privilege and it needs to be challenged. There are huge advocates of clergy/penitent privilege but as these specific cases come to light, their advocacy is being derailed in leaps and bounds. Something has to change. Sexual abuse of children has been allowed to run rampant for far to long and the tides of public opinion are crying out for reform in the courts affording this special C/P privilege. -
BluesBrother
This only highlights the folly of baptizing children and then pretend that they are adults...treating them that way.
Thankfully, I never was asked to consider a J C case with a minor.. I would not have wanted to take action , even if he were a stroppy adolescent. You have to remember that he is a kid..
-
Island Man
Since JWs often boast about being different in that they don't have clergy, why are they now citing clergy-penitent privilege to justify not reporting to the police? Isn't that hypocrisy? I'm interested to see how JWs respond to this. -
Mephis
The constitutional conflict in this case was that the wording of the exemption wasn't open to all religions without interpretation. Instead of allowing that to be a barrier, the judge (and the JW lawyer agreed) decided to apply JW practice to the wording.
States can individually decide whether or not to allow an exemption. eg West Virgina and New Hampshire specify they do not recognise a clergy privilege in these cases and require clergy to report, as does Guam. Four other states (including Texas) don't mention clergy specifically but do say there is no clergy penitent privilege when it comes to reporting child abuse. source: https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/clergymandated.pdf
So the issue is whether JWs fit the exemption as worded in Delaware. If they don't, they report as they have to do in other states already. If they do, they get an exemption in Delaware as they have in other states already.
The lack of an exemption in other states hasn't changed how they operate a JC. I presume, however, they do report in those states - as they are legally required. The question is whether or not the Delaware case will undermine their claim to clergy/penitent privilege in those states where they claim it. I suspect that much will depend on the wording of legislation and the willingness of people to press a prosecution.
eg Illinois' definition of this privilege seems impossible to challenge on the same grounds as that of Delaware.
A member of the clergy or practitioner of any religious denomination accredited by the religious body to which he or she belongs shall not be compelled to disclose in any court, or to any administrative body or agency, or to any public officer, a confession or admission made to him or her in his or her professional character or as a spiritual advisor in the course of the discipline enjoined by the rules or practice of such religious body or of the religion that he or she professes, nor be compelled to divulge any information that has been obtained by him or her in such professional character or such spiritual advisor.