I too have wondered about the legalities of this too, I believe sometime in the future this may become a court case, Is there any other organization that uses this "dissasociation by action theory"? The WT is the only one I know of. It looks to me there is only 2 ways to leave any organization--be forcibly removed or ask to leave. How in the world is this a legal recognized concept? Any Lawyers reading this thread and can give some insight? This may eventually be a major case for the WT.
I am a lawyer and perhaps I can give you some insight.
What you are describing in this disassociation by default thread is what is commonly understood in the law as a "constructive_________," as in a "constructive eviction," for example. A constructive eviction would be where you, the landlord, did not formally evict the tenant, but by allowing the property to become utterly uninhabitable, you have "constructively" evicted the tenant by your inaction. This permits the tenant to get out of his lease obligation and the law commonly recognizes that where an action/failure to act or series of actions are taken, though no formal process was observed, the person or entity has constructively acted/failed to act resulting in something consistent with as if they had gone the formal route.
Thus, when WTS says, We have a clear policy on military involvement for our members, and a person violates that, then no formal adjudication would be required in order to establish that the person had "constructively" disassociated themselves. At bottom I suspect this is what's behind the Society's directive, to streamline the process for the body of elders. However, I imagine this would be restricted to public actions of which an affirmative participation would be required, such as joining the military, or, formerly, voting. Another example of this constructive behavior woould be as follows: I am no longer a member in good stading of the Bar of the State of Missouri if I fail to pay my Bar Dues. I didn't tell them I no longer wanted to be a member. They didn't ask me to leave. By my inaction I will no longer be considered in good standing. By failing to pay, I have constructively quit the group.
Distinguish public acts, such as joining the military or accepting a blood transfusion from so-called private acts involving a supposed moral lapse followed by unrepentance (which as someone has already pointed out is really the only offense for which people are disfellowshiped). I agree this is a difficult line to find in many cases.
As to the legality of this business, religious groups get a wide berth when it comes to the conduct of their membership. There is no third party liability when it comes to shunning, because 1) it's not criminal conduct and 2) all those doing it would say it was of their own volition anyway. What about a civil action, a tort? The closest action I can think of would be "intentional infliction of emotional distress," or even, unfortunately, wrongful death in a suicide case perhaps, but that would have to be committed by a person, not an entity. Additionally, there would have to be something shocking to the conscience about the conduct. The textbook example of this tort is a case where a man played a practical joke on a woman at a party and told her her husband had suffered a violent horrible death and she should rush home at once (this was 70 years or more ago). The poor woman suffered extreme emotional breakdown as she rushed home and became quite ill even after realizing it was a very sick practical joke. Another example is where a person maliciously killed all of a woman's beloved pets in front of her to deliberately distress her. Perhaps our sensibilities have dulled over time. At any rate, shunning is not considered to be shocking conduct by today's standards, I don't believe.
No one joins the WT without their eyes wide open, in one sense. No one is coerced (under the legal definition of coercion). And, as I said, we would probably prefer to preserve the latitude afforded a religious body for their members to make choices for themselves when it comes to particular conduct. Obviously, the issue is a lot less clear (and more likely to run afoul of disastrous consequences) when it comes to something like refusing blood transfusions, and then dying, for God's sake. What you get for that is your picture on the Awake with a commendation from the Society (maybe). These human "sacrifices" to Twisted Reasoning are akin to the Christian Scientists who refuse ALL medical treatment. Yet, would we rather force these things on people, making martyrs left and right?
The law will become involved when criminal conduct is involved, such as child molestation, failure to disclose to authorities, etc. Yet, as I say, there is nothing criminal about being a complete jerk and ignoring your fellow man or woman. Which, I have to say, is one of the saddest misuses of our limited time on this planet.
Euripides
