AlanF
: Our views are not all that far apart. I don’t think Focus’ and mine are all that far apart either,On the basics, I agree. In the details, well, you know. :-)
My detailing is for purposes of helping those in need of it. If they wish to reject that detailing based upon their own interpretation of words, personal experience or the experience of others then that is their prerogative, but it does not change what is written in Society publications, my own knowledge of what Society policy is or my own experience with it, which experience is close and significant. It is interesting to read your take on various details in our back and forth. Apparently at your whim you decide whether to accept a written statement as valid (or not) to suit your conclusions. In some cases you use the Society’s writing as evidence of your claims. In other instances you reject Society writings that are contrary to your claims by wholesale dismissal. In effect you are saying, "When the Society agrees with me then its words are valid but when they disagree with me then their words are invalid." I would not describe that as objective, and such actions can have a bad effect on your initiatives.
So it is with the policies regarding child molestation. The erring in the direction you describe proves the Society's intent -- which is to keep molestation cases quiet so as to avoid adverse publicity for the Witnesses.The only other reasonable intent would be deliberately to protect molesters, do you not agree?
The Society errs toward self-preservation by not encouraging that victims report their allegations to authorities. This does not mean that they prefer that they not be reported but that victim are left to do that on their own rather than having the moral support of local elders behind them. As policy the Society has made the choice to leaving the prerogative of reporting up to the victim (or parents) but they have failed to explicitly instruct elders to encourage victims to report these crimes to proper authorities. I do not think this policy is any more protective of pedophiles than a religious organization that has decided that it will not become involved in the process at all, which many have. Can you imagine what goes through a pedophiles mind upon hearing of the internal judicial process at work among Jehovah’s Witnesses? Can you imagine a pedophile wanting to expose himself to an organization that pursues reports of immoral behavior? The ultimate test of whether pedophiles are drawn to JWs boils down to that question, that is, whether they want to be associated with an organization that pursues reports of immoral behavior.
: But we apparently disagree on whether those policies err toward protecting perpetrators. While I think the Society’s policies may sometimes have the effect of protecting perpetrators it is hard to tell if that protection is to the point of erring toward that protection.If there is ever any "effect of protecting perpetrators" at all, whether by design or by neglect, then there is simply nothing to argue: the policy by definition errs towards protecting perpetrators.
That is simply poppy-cock! It sounds good for your case to be able to say such a thing but reality is that the same could be said for any judicial system in the civilized world! The fact of the matter is that any judicial system that holds the accused innocent until proven guilty does then protect pedophiles by your applied logic! That is precisely the point of my last response to you having to do with standards of evidence! I see you missed the point.
Again, the intent of those who actually put the words of the policies on paper are largely irrelevant. If the effect of their words and their actual implementation of their words by their instructions to the lower-level 'managers' who actually carry them out is to sometimes protect the bad guys, then the real policy has the effect of tending to protect the bad guys.
No, the intent of those who put the policies on paper is exactly the point because those are the ones you accuse and are after. Am I wrong about who you accuse? If lower level ‘managers’ are doing something other then following policy then they are doing just that, failing to follow policy. In such instances then the ‘higher-ups’ are culpable only if they know of it and condone it. If that can be sufficiently evidenced then you have what you need. Otherwise you have not demonstrated culpability of those ‘higher-ups’ and thus you have not established any effect of tending to protect the bad guys as the real policy.
Conversely, if the policy tended to err on the side of the victims, then there would tend to be a few cases where errors are made to the disadvantage of alleged perpetrators.
One reason for laws tending to protect perpetrators is this simple fact: We cannot change the fact that a person or persons were victimized but we do have a good measure of choice about how likely we are to victimize an additional person or persons by erring in standards of evidence and burden of proof.
In the experience of everyone who has so far seen fit to comment publicly, which tendency dominates? Does not this observation of how Watchtower policy works in actual practice prove my contention?
Yes, in the case of people who have seen fit to come forward to Society critics, most certainly that is the case. Why should the rest come forward to Society critics when they are not critical? Duh! I know of more cases off the top of my head where victims were pleased with how their situations were dealt with than critical ones I have read online in the last month. So, should I apply your reasoning and decide that the tendency is otherwise? Thank goodness I have more objective reasons for my criticisms on this subject.
Many have concluded that, because of the secret and insidious nature of child molestation, and the mind games that molesters play with children, the "some evidence" should be a bit less stringent than for cases of crime against adults. The Society doesn't seem to understand this.
If the Society made it policy that elders should encourage that victims report such allegations to authorities then this situation would be moot. If you are talking strictly about what weight of evidence the Society insists upon for internal findings then, when it comes to witnesses, what less would you accept beyond two witnesses of similar yet separate events? (More on the latter point to follow)
However, many cases prove that elders have actively discouraged reporting. Have they done that simply of their own initiative? Usually, not at all. What they've done is to take everything they've learned at the Society's hand and integrate it to come to an overall mindset of discouraging reporting so as to avoid "bringing reproach on Jehovah's name". Given that Watchtower leaders are well aware that these attitudes are common among elders, the fact that they haven't corrected such attitudes strongly suggests that they're happy with the situation. This, despite having made some noises that it's ok to report. Inaction is a very good indicator of intent.
Yes, in many cases elders have discouraged reporting. That is precisely one of the reasons why elders were told to call the Society immediately upon hearing accusations of child molestation, so that they could be told explicitly not to discourage this type of reporting. If my assertion here is correct it is easy enough for you to verify, and if I am correct then your conclusions above are lacking in merit. You apparently trust this other elder you are working with more than me, which is fine and I have no problem with that. According to him he has judicial experience in dealing with the Society on matters of reported child molestation. Ask him if the Society did not tell him point blank not to discourage reporting. Ask him. If he is as experienced as he claims and if he tells you the truth then I have no question about what his answer will be.
We're not just talking about what the Service department does, but about what the Society's entire "judicial arm" does. This "arm" includes all elders, since they are explicitly appointed by the Society to be its local representatives in matters of 'congregational justice'.
It is true that the Society’s entire judicial arm includes all elders, but I am not addressing all elders but rather the central controlling organization that your criticisms are leveled at. As I expressed above in this post, if you want to criticize the ‘higher-ups’ for actions of the lower ‘managers’ then you have to sufficiently evidence a connection making those ‘higher-ups’ culpable. There is some evidence of this nature but curiously you have not picked up on it. I will explain the nature of this evidence later if you do not eventually see it, but I am hoping that you will put your objective ‘thinking-cap’ on to realize it for yourself because that is the means that will best suit your needs.
Since it is demonstrable that elders, and even the Service department, often act inconsistently from case to case and in different parts of the world, it follows that there a number of sets of rules that these people are following, or at least think they're following. To contradict this would be to claim that the elders who act inconsistently are deliberately ignoring Society policy. While this certainly happens, it is clear to anyone who knows Jehovah's Witnesses that most elders would be horrified to be accused of doing that.
That claim is not altogether a valid one because not only is each case unique but around the world there are so many different local circumstances and some of those circumstances practically insist upon different actions in terms of involvement of secular authorities. As for Society policy on the strictly internal judiciary, one fundamental piece of advice that the Society constantly reminds elders of is that each case should be judged on its own merits and that no two cases are identical. Sometimes those variances may seem small but sometimes small distinctions make the difference between one choice versus another. That too affects your claim above. It is better to examine any hard evidence that exists about Society policy and then build a case of culpability upon that, if that can be done sufficiently, and I think it can be. From what I can tell, so far what you have done is decided what you think the Society has done (or does) and then looked for evidence in support. Evidence that runs contrary to your conclusion you simply dismiss! What you need to do is let the evidence speak to you and then assign blame accordingly. In the end an objective assignment of blame must accommodate all the evidence.
(1) No statements appear in public Watchtower literature directing that elders can convict someone of molestation on the testimony of two witnesses to two separate molestation events. [hr][/blockquote]I take it you agree with this statement.This fact immediately raises an important question: If the Society feels, as you claim, that it is permissible to convict someone of child molestation based on such testimony, then why is this fact hidden from the rank and file of Jehovah's Witnesses? Would it not be good for the protection of children if the parents (non-elders, of course) were clearly informed of this? And isn't it clear that if such parents were so informed, they would be significantly more likely to compare notes with other parents to see if the molester of their child also molested other children? So why do you suppose this information is kept eyes-only for elders?
I do not know of any obvious place where the Society talks about this detail in its public publications. What of it? Constantly the Society writes about having two witnesses to establish guilt. What would make a publisher think that because two persons witnessed the same crime on two separate occasions that that is not enough? Man, you really are straining at gnats on this one, Alan! Do you think for one second that a ‘cheated on’ JW wife would hesitate to take the word of two persons to her local elder body simply because they saw her husband doing another woman on separate occasions? If those witnesses were solid, do you really believe she would accept anything other than acceptance of the testimony from those elders? Do you really believe what you are saying here, that because this detail is not outlined that JWs somehow reject the notion, somehow think this is unacceptable or that it never dawns on them that this is the case? I got news for you. When a JW feels they have the goods on you for whatever reason, they come knocking on the elders’ doors! For that matter, JWs are taught not to even wait to have two witnesses! If they have a single witness or are the witness themselves then they are taught to tell elders! Since that is true then your concerns about the subject detail are meaningless!
No statements appear in private, elders-only Watchtower literature directing that they are required to convict someone of molestation on the testimony of two witnesses to two separate molestation events.
What? They are not required to "convict" on anything other than acceptable evidence! What is acceptable evidence? Acceptable evidence includes "two or three witnesses to the same kind of wrongdoing but each one is witness to a separate incident." That is what the Flock book states.
What you intimate is that in each listed case of acceptable evidence there is somehow a distinction between those listed items that require conviction versus those that do not require conviction. If we apply that reasoning then not even one of the evidences so listed "requires to convict." What the listing does is tell elders which types of evidence they can use for establishing guilt, but in each case they must weigh the actual testimony. This even includes confession! Sometimes the accused does confess but what they confess to is less than a disfellowshipping offense. Upon hearing such confessions witnesses have been known to say, "Yes, that is exactly what I saw too!" At that point, if that is the whole case, then it is thrown out for lack of evidence of anything worthy of shunning! The case of two eye witnesses to the same event or different events is no different. In each case the testimony is weighed. If the testimony is solid and it definitely is of a disfellowshipping sin then the individual is found guilty of the charge whether the two witnesses were of the same or separate events.
Your whole line of reasoning on this question of two witnesses of separate event is circular. In the end your reasoning boils down to, "‘Acceptable evidence’ does not mean what it says because it is different from my own conclusion." I see no need to pursue this detail any further. Believe whatever you want. I am only trying to help and will not insist that you see it my way, which is what I think someone else you know is insisting upon. I hope it does not hurt their cause!
Let me give you an example and you tell me how the Society's Service and/or Legal departments would direct elders to handle it. There was a case in Woodland, Washington about five years ago where a JW man was arrested for and confessed to molesting 35 boys over a 20 year period in congregations in his area. I assume that the molester was convicted and imprisoned but I lost track of the case. Now just suppose that the man, instead of confessing, was convicted in court on the testimony of, say, five of his victims. Would local elders be required to convict this man in a JW judicial proceeding? Or would they have the option of saying, "Well, we don't have the required two or three witnesses so there's nothing we can do"?
Given the details you have provided and assuming the case warranted congregation involvement, if the testimony of two of those five victims was solid and of the same sin then the Society’s policy would be that elders accept is as the scriptural "two witnesses" needed to establish guilt. Only if the testimony was less than solid would elders have the task of deciding if it is enough, but that is also the case with eye witness testimony of the same event, which is what I have been trying to get across to you. You can call the Society today and they will tell you the same thing! Frankly, in your example, the testimony of the five would not be necessary because the individual apparently confessed to a shunnable crime! If the details you provided are solid, the case is real and there are no other circumstances to consider in terms of whether congregation action was needed, then, if the Society has stood behind any local decision that evidence is lacking then you have the case you are looking for.
This [1995 Watchtower] article is, in my view, an example of how the Society manages to poison the well without being able to be held accountable. Back in 1995 when the article first came out, I and a number of critics were aghast at what it said. We argued vehemently with certain JW-defenders, including a particular elder, that it allowed for virtually all memories of abuse to be classed as "repressed memories" and dismissed. When the January 1, 1997 WT article came out instructing that "known molesters" could never serve in positions of congregational responsibility, many of us saw this as a reversal of the position not-quite-stated in the November 1, 1995 WT. How do you suppose we all came to these conclusions? Do you think we just made them up? Or were they the product of knowing how to read between the lines and figure out exactly what the Society really means?
The reason those elders knew what that article was speaking of was because back in 1993 they had received a letter telling them to make a distinction of "individuals who only recently started to have memories of abuse that happened at a young age." (BOE letter of 2/3/93) What you are trying to do here is make a written statement mean something other than what it says. That subject 95’ Watchtower was explicit regarding the language you want to use that it was of the controversial type of recalled memory as opposed to the typical memories that we all have! Again you are applying circular logic. You are saying, "This must mean what I want it to mean because that is what supports my contention!"
I know very well that the Society has used innuendo to move the JW community into a given direction. But that is not the case on the subject of that 95’ Watchtower.
The fact is that the 1995 WT article contains statements that can be used to dismiss virtually any charges of remembered child molestation. Just how long should a memory be forgotten to be classified as repressed? 30 years? 20? 5? 1? Six months? Six weeks? The article doesn't say, and so it gives free rein to elders to figure it out for themselves.
That is absurd! Either the person has always had these memories or they have not. The article in question speaks skeptically only of instances of persons who had not thought of having been molested and then unexpectedly started having flashbacks of being molested as a child. This is very different from an adult who says, "Oh, yeah, I had forgotten that incident but now that I think of it this is what happened." There is nothing at all unexpected to the person about that type of recall because once they remember it they realize they were always cognizant of it! If an adult only recently and unexpectedly recalls an incident from childhood then just how sound that recollection is has even been challenged in the same courts of the land that you want child molestation cases reported to. Will you argue your same case to them? This situation is quite different from adults who know they were abused when a child because they were always cognizant of it, meaning that their judgment is not based upon unexpected flashbacks.
Suppose a girl was molested from infancy to age ten. Suppose she never forgot the molestation, but simply put it aside. At age 25 she decides to report the molestation to elders. What will the elders do? Will they pull out the 1995 WT article and say, "Oh, those are just repressed memories! We can do nothing."
If those elders act as you suggest then they are not acting in harmony with the 95’ article. If they call the Society as instructed they will be given the same explanation that I provided above (not that it should be needed) if it is a concern that they express. Again, the article is explicit that it speaks only of unexpected memories, which means they are not direct ones as in your example.
(6) No statements appear in public Watchtower literature telling JWs in a positive way that reporting sexual abuse to secular authorities is desirable.: That is not true. The March 8th Awake of 1993 does make the recommendation that victims of rape (rape is sexual abuse!)Come on, Friend. We've been over this before. You're making this sort of logical error:Good citizens are required to report murder to the police.Murder is a crime.Changing lanes without signaling is a crime.Therefore good citizens must be required to report bad signalers to the police.What's wrong with that logic is the same as what's wrong with your logic.
The logical error here is yours, Alan. You said "No statements appear in public Watchtower literature telling JWs in a positive way that reporting sexual abuse to secular authorities is desirable." Unless you can successfully argue that rape is not sexual abuse then your response is in error.
Otherwise your error is again a critical one because you are picking and choosing your evidence in the Society’s publications. If you want to be critical of the Society’s expressed views then you must base your criticisms on the Society’s expressed views rather than your interpretations of those expressed views and certainty rather than your interpretations of select expressions from the Society.
The Society says: Report rape.
The Society says: Sexual molestation of a child is rape
Conclusion: Sexual molestation of a child should be reported.
If you want to be critical of what the Society says then be critical of what it actually says rather than your take on what it says. If you do the latter then you have applied circular reasoning.
As for the 93’ Awake article, it most definitely did address child rape as well as the rape of adults. I see that you conveniently left off highlighting those references from the article. You know, the ones that address minors or the ones where parents are encouraged to talk to their children about the issue.
As for the lack of explicitly referencing the 93’ Awake article, that is part of my gripe and it has to do with training, which has to do with culpability on the part of the Society.
: Significantly, regarding the crime of sexual child molestation, your favored 1995 Watchtower article states, "A person who actually abuses a child sexually is a rapist and should be viewed as such." (Page 27)The writer, as I have demonstrated, is wrong and is obviously merely expressing his opinion. Whether sexual abuse is classified as rape depends on the state or country in which the abuse was committed, and the Society has certainly never given a clear exposition.
This is an instance of your poor reasoning on our subject matter. Whether the writer was right or wrong in your judgment or according to some locale’s statutes is irrelevant to the material. The question is, what is the Society’s view because that is what you are wanting to criticize! By dismissing the comment as wrong you are doing nothing short of saying, "What he says cannot be correct or else it would conflict with my conclusions!" Such reasoning runs a very tight circle. As stated the comment represents the Society’s view on the moral question of, "Is sexual molestation of a child rape?" The answer given is, "Yes."
Besides the above, your secular definitions of what constitutes rape only refer to locale’s that favor your view. As even you can imagine, other less developed areas of the world have a far more conservative estimation of what constitutes rape.
Friend
