Two witness rule: who cares? (page 3)

Giordano

There was a time when a JW adult rape victim who had a knife at their throat would be DFed for not crying out. Eventually that crap was dropped and rape in the JW world came to be considered a stand alone crime that needed to be reported to the police.

However within the corporate structure of the JW construct an innocent child still needs to have a second witness to prove that they were sexually abused. And parents are/were intentionally blocked/discouraged from reporting this crime.

The ARC found evidence within the WT Australian Branch of 1006 cases of child sexual abuse dating back to 1950 and not a one was reported to the police. Why? Because there was not a second witness. Why? Because that was an enforced policy of the WTBTS so a parent(s) who did report the crime could be or would be disfellowshiped.

The good old WTBTS.....perfected the trick of piling one crime on another to make it all go away.

I am not sure the Society even recognizes that child sexual abuse is a serious crime. They seem to be following the Catholic Church's playbook of not encouraging reporting child sexual abuse as a crime because for them it's merely a sin.

By leaving the two witness rule intact ........ the Society makes it clear that they are not about protecting their children, that they really don't intend to change a single thing about how that situation needs to be handled.

In reality they are about protecting their corporate image their brand.

To this day they still try to hinder parents from going to the police immediately....the Elders are not encouraged to report this crime immediately but they are encouraged to report this crime to the WTBTS legal department to get their instructions. which is about if there is a mandatory law in their state (USA) that they must inform the police.

The burden is still put on the parent....... who now has to worry about their own role, with regard to their obedience to the Society and the local Elders.

Since half of the known child sexual abuse takes place within the family the abuse can continue for years. And as the ARC and some revealing cases here have shown....... the abuse can continue for years.

eyeuse2badub

Morpheus

Have you ever been seated on a body of elders where the '2 witness' rule was invoked? Have you ever been a victim of some sort of sexual abuse or accused of some grievous act for which you could be df'ed?

It doesn't sound like it to me!

just saying!

_Morpheus

Have you ever been seated on a body of elders where the '2 witness' rule was invoked? Have you ever been a victim of some sort of sexual abuse or accused of some grievous act for which you could be df'ed?

Hmmm..... what would any of that matter?

redvip2000

your still emphasizing the religion and its roll. It doesn't matter. Its just a religion. Leave law enforcement to law enforcement and let the religion do whatever it does. Never shall the two meet.

Your entire post is silly. Of course it doesn't matter for those who have come to the conclusion that the religion is horse shit.

But this is about the people who believe that the organization speak on the behalf of God. Of course that for these people every rule matter.

It matters that the elders encourage them not to call the police. It matter that the two witness rule is seemingly based on the fairy tale book. It matters that Jellohover's name is not dragged to the mud. These things do matter to those who are still in, so they are important.

Who cares that the two witness rule is nonsense to the rest of us. We already know that.

Xanthippe

But this is about the people who believe that the organization speak on the behalf of God. Of course that for these people every rule matter. -redvip

Precisely my point. It's so easy to forget how the rules matter when you've been out a while. You're disobedient to the rules, you get thrown out, no panda paradise.

Rattigan350

Phoebe said "Because it's devastating when an elder says to you 'it's your word against his, nothing we can do.'"

What do you expect them to do? Believe all women? The two witness rule presents some due process. With the Kavanagh hearings it was just his word vs her word. Do you ruin a man's, family's reputation with cooberating evidence?

_Morpheus

Your entire post is silly. Of course it doesn't matter for those who have come to the conclusion that the religion is horse shit.
But this is about the people who believe that the organization speak on the behalf of God. Of course that for these people every rule matter.
It matters that the elders encourage them not to call the police. It matter that the two witness rule is seemingly based on the fairy tale book. It matters that Jellohover's name is not dragged to the mud. These things do matter to those who are still in, so they are important.

Who cares that the two witness rule is nonsense to the rest of us. We already know that.

No your entire response is silly!

Ok i feel better now. Aside from that, your response is poorly thought out. My post(s) on this topic are not directed towards those inside. They are directed towards those outside who advocate (waste time) for change in the org, as if a religions rules equate with justice. Free your mind.

Also, i never said the two witness rule was nonsense. I said it was irrelevant.

_Morpheus

Also, what is this constant refrain where some are saying the two witness rule prevents people from calling the police? The two are not related. Again, free your minds.

steve2

If the main point is that not all JW.org "policies" related to allegations of child-sex-abuse warrant the same air space, I agree. Regarding the two witness rule, Morpheus makes a great point: No parent or caregiver is forced to forgo reporting the matter to relevant local authoriries.

I would also hope that as the organization is subjected to varying levels of media and legal scrutiny and condemnation that JW parents and caregivers and other relevant parties in the organization will begin to realize (if they don't already) that it is their moral and ethical duty to go straight to the authorities in the first instance. The elders might be required by JW organization rules to first contact the Branch Office. But parents, caregivers and other relevant parties are not bound by this ridiculous rule.

Rather than disempowering the GB and its rules, the focus needs to shift to empowering parents and caregivers to go straight to the authorities.

I grant that untold numbers of JW parents and caregivers have a god-awful dependence on elders telling them what to do. Yet, any parent or caregiver worthy of the name parent or caregiver needs to take stock of what is the chief priority here: The child's wellbeing or the organization's name (i.e., reputation).

Finkelstein

For those that protest, argue or advocate for change in that rule, why?

Because from a social psychological perspective it can and does get exploited by people (JWS) who would cause harm to others ie. children., in foreknowing or acceptance of this particular clause.

It inevitability was exploited by the WTS to protect its own public image, in view of a possible serious and unlawful crime being committed.

Two witness rule: who cares?

Share this