Reveal article: Jehovah’s Witnesses settle suit alleging cover-up of child sex abuse

by AndersonsInfo 52 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  Richard Oliver

  State v Martin

  http://courts.mrsc.org/supreme/137wn2d/137wn2d0774.htm

  MacFarland v West Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses Lorain, OH

  http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/9/2016/2016-Ohio-5462.pdf

  Pages 9-22

  Jane Doe V Latter Day Saints

  http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-court-of-appeals/1094072.html

  State v Archibeque

  https://casetext.com/case/state-v-archibeque-1

  People v Bragg

  http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20MICO%2020120509324/PEOPLE%20v.%20BRAGG

  My comments come from WestLaw which takes the judicial commentary notes on the cases.
• 

  Fisherman

  er is an elder. Will he be disfellowshipped for this wilful neglect? Will he be stood down for failing to be exemplary?

  What does that have to do with the legal duty of the guardians to protect their child physically?
• 

  never a jw

  defendant did not waive the clergy-penitent privilege by having his wife present during the alleged confession;

  The relationship between husband and wife should not be compared to the relationship between elders and the legal department, who are appraised of the sins of a member.

  The clergy penitent privilege should be denied in any case where the information moves outside of the sinner and the cleric (one person), and especially when an investigation is conducted and punitive measures are taken within the church. Religions/religious leaders should keep the scope of their actions limited to the spiritual realm. That's their domain. The physical world is the jurisdiction of secular authorities
  
• 

  never a jw

  The victims father is an elder. Will he be disfellowshipped for this wilful neglect? Will he be stood down for failing to be exemplary?

  Are you kidding me? He is exemplary because he puts the interests of the Watchtower before the interests of his own child.
  
• 

  Richard Oliver

  You did not read what the holdings were in State v Archilbeque. The court ruled that the clergy-penitent privilege was still in effect even though part of the conversation was in the presence of the wife. It is to describe that just because there is the presence of a third party does not mean that the person has waived their privilege.

  And in Jane Doe v Corporation of Presidents of Church of Jesus Christ and of Latter Day Saints the state supreme court ruled that even the investigation does not waive the privilege. Neither does the transmission of the facts of the accusation to a national headquarters.
• 

  Listener

  Fisherman - What does that have to do with the legal duty of the guardians to protect their child physically?

  You blamed the parents for not protecting their daughter which resulted in her continued abuse.

  Since the father is negligent in his responsibilities in caring for his family why does the Watchtower not take any action against him? He's an Elder to start with. But surely it's a gross sin to be responsible for allowing the sexual abuse of your daughter and as such, why is he not disfellowshipped?
  
  
• 

  never a jw

  R.O.

  You did not read my post clearly. i am stating my opinion regarding the undeserved privileges that religions get and are not available to the rest of us. Something wrong with that, don't you think? Have you heard of the Equal Protection Clause??
  
• 

  Richard Oliver

  Now the father could not argue clergy pertinent relationship though. He did not gather the information in his capacity as an elder but that of a father. Courts have ruled that the communication must meet certain requirements, of course each state differs based on their laws, but in general they have to meet these. First that the clergy member was acting in their official capacity as a spiritual leader or counselor. This means that you couldn't call up your friend Joe who is a minister and while discussing the game last night you blurt out that you just stole a car, that would not be protected. Second, is would a reasonable person expect that the conversation be kept confidential. Speaking in front of a group of other people would not qualify for the most part. Though as I pointed out there are exceptions to that, it depends on the nature of the conversation. Third, is the communication part of the principles and discipline of the established religion. Such as in the Catholic Church, there is some rituals when it comes to confessions verses other communications. So is the process well established within that faith.
• 

  Richard Oliver

  Never a jw.

  Husband and wife privilege is a well-established privilege throughout the country. It is there to encourage open communication between two married individuals. But in many states the only privilege that is recognized for child abuse is that of attorney-client and priest-pertinent. Those privileges are specifically codified in those statutes. In pretty much all other proceedings a husband and wife privilege is sacrosanct and rarely is ever violated. Equal protection does apply here because all recognized religions receives this privilege and is not dependent on how the state views a certain religion.
• 

  Richard Oliver

  It is also important to remember that clergy-penitent privilege just like husband and wife privilege is not valid when one who is part of that privilege see things themselves. It only is privilege if it is communicated either verbally or in writing. If a wife sees her husband kill a man, the privilege is not in effect for her to testify what she saw herself. She could not discuss what her husband told her about the murder but that is it.