Bit long winded I know, but how about I save the ol' GoBod some work and lay it on the line for them? Anyone got any WT headed paper?
Dear Brothers
We are confident that you
Brothers are loyally upholding the scriptural direction from the Governing Body
in order to correctly apply the scriptures to deal with the various accusations
of wrongdoing that are brought to your attention by members of your
congregations. The Governing Body has
reviewed the application of scripture in the case of accusations of child abuse
and would like to give the following direction which supercedes our previous
letters on the matter. Please adjust your
copy of the manual Shepherd the Flock of God with the following deepened
understanding.
We have long used the scripture
which states the ‘two witness’ rule from Matthew 18: 15 – 17 as the basis for
making judicial decisions regarding sexual abuse. However,
with further study of God’s Word it has been noted that in that instance, Jesus
Christ was reiterating the requirement to adhere to certain principles of the
Mosaic Law, this one being found in Deuteronomy 19:15. It is an established fact that a sexual
assault, especially by an adult on a minor, is not one which would require the
‘accuser’ to go lay bare the fault of the ‘accused’ with him or her alone. Therefore it is unlikely that Jesus was referring
to cases involving molestation of children.
In fact, there is no record in scripture that Jesus was ever questioned
about the appropriate way of dealing with sexual assault.
When Jesus was questioned about
matters, he referred back to the Mosaic Law so that his answers were in harmony
with what was already established as Divine Law. It is reasonable to conclude that had Jesus
been asked to comment on cases of sexual abuse, he would have referred back to
that law to instruct his followers how to deal with such a heinous act. The Mosaic Law sheds light on the proper
procedure for determining guilt in cases of sexual assault.
May we refer you to the passage
in Deuteronomy 22: 25 – 27 which was written after, and therefore in addition
to, the ‘two witness’ rule at Deuteronomy 19.
There are several features of this passage which have led us to review
its implementation in judicial proceedings regarding child abuse. Firstly, it is clearly dealing with sexual
assault, a sexual act being performed in this case on a young woman against her
will. Secondly, the sexual crime
committed is considered by Jehovah to be as serious as murder. Thirdly, the girl was in a situation where
‘there was no one to rescue her’ indicating an absence of witnesses. This closely matches the situation facing
abused children and we would like to highlight this new scriptural precedent
for administering justice in these matters.
While we hold the position that
we are no longer under the Mosaic Law, Jesus Christ himself left a fine example
for his followers by referring to that law for judicial matters. However the scriptures establish that Jesus
was not approached regarding a crime of sexual assault. The Governing Body have reached the
reasonable conclusion that had Jesus been asked to comment on such matters, his
answer would have directed the questioner to the requirements of the Mosaic Law
as this was invariably his custom.
This law indicates that Jehovah
gave responsibility to mature men to determine whether a sexual assault had
taken place. Mature men today are the
elders. Jehovah knows that now, as back
then, a mature man is capable of discerning whether a young person has been the
victim of a sexual assault based on their testimony alone (as is usually the
only available evidence of sexual assaults.)
In fact, mature men back then were given the directive to administer the
most severe available punishment based solely on the evidence of the victim. It is therefore our recommendation that
elders determine the veracity of any accusation by a professed victim of sexual
abuse and take judicial action against the abuser if it is their belief that
the victim is telling the truth.
This reviewed procedure will
alleviate the difficulties experienced by many elders who have been unable to
deal with perpetrators of abuse effectively due to the absence of
witnesses. This clear scriptural
precedent we have discussed for dealing with such intimate matters of a sexual
nature definitely gives you brothers the authority to take action. It is not necessary for more children to be
harmed in order to have further witnesses to the wrongdoing. We would like this directive to be employed
with immediate effect and applied to any accusations that are currently held in
abeyance due to one accuser being the only known victim of the accused.
It is also advisable to
immediately report allegations of abuse to the appropriate authorities so that
these can be dealt with by trained personnel and potential evidence is not
compromised. Please see the attached
document outlining the common legal framework in most lands. Contact the Service Desk for confirmation if
there is any doubt about your responsibility to report a crime.
Assuring you of our warm
Christian love and praying for Jehovah’s blessing on your endeavours to protect
our most vulnerable congregation members.
Your Brothers of the Governing
Body.
Legal Framework
Please familiarise yourselves with
the law of the land in which you reside; child abuse is a serious crime. The following are commonly held standards in
many lands and your belief that a crime occurred is sufficient to be regarded
as ‘knowledge’ of a crime:
Accessory to a crime
In the United States, a person who learns of a crime and
gives some form of assistance before the crime is committed is known as an
"accessory before the fact". A person who learns of the crime after
it is committed and helps the criminal to conceal it, or aids the criminal in
escaping, or simply fails to report the crime, is known as an "accessory
after the fact". A person who does both is sometimes referred to as an
"accessory before and after the fact", but this usage is less common.
Criminal facilitation
In some lands, criminal
"facilitation" laws do not require that the primary crime be actually
committed as a prerequisite for criminal liability. These include state
statutes making it a crime to "provide" a person with "means or
opportunity" to commit a crime, "believing it probable that he is
rendering aid to a person who intends to commit a crime."
Knowledge of the crime
To be convicted of an accessory
charge, the accused must generally be proved to have had actual knowledge that
a crime was going to be, or had been, committed. Furthermore, there must be
proof that the accessory knew that his or her action, or inaction, was helping
the criminals commit the crime, or evade detection, or escape.
