There
is a problem though when people just dump documents with no context or research
behind the posting of these kinds of documents.
First, there are questions related to privacy that both the
victims and third parties and even the suspected perpetrator has. Even though
the names have been redacted it is easy for people to surmise who these
people are and can cause additional emotional pain and distress for all those
parties. Look at the ARC they only released the documents that were part of one
case because they had communicated with the harmed woman, she gave them testimony
and I would assume they communicated with her before releasing those documents.
This would grant the victim an opportunity to decide if they want people to
know the story or not. And yes even the accused perpetrator has rights not for
certain information to be let out that he doesn’t want out or that is not put
out through legal means.
Second,
these documents have not been authenticated nor is it possible to know if these
are all of the documents or contains all the facts known by all the parties. In
court a lawyer cannot just introduce documents into evidence no matter how
accurate or damning they maybe. Evidence can only be introduced after it is presented
to witnesses for that information to be authenticated and for context to be
given. Even in this case there is no documents as to communication with the
legal department which would be the department that would give legal advice on
if and when communication needs to be reported to the authorities.
Third,
I understand that people have a problem with the fact that he was reinstated
and allowed to go door to door, but that is his right to practice his religion.
Just because someone has committed a vial act doesn’t mean that they have given
up their rights as a human. Yes, he may reoffend in the future but we as a
society don’t punish people for future crimes, we can only punish people for
things that they have actually committed.
Fourth,
is this thought that the authorities were never notified when it is certainly
possible for one to surmise that authorities were notified. In the documents it
speaks to a restraining order that was granted to one of the victims against
the perpetrator. In order to receive a restraining order from a judge the
victim of the abuse would need to explain to why that person is in potential
harm and that the court would be required to curtail another person’s rights. The
victim would have to explain what happened to her and why she feels that her
father is still a danger to herself and her husband. Also it is impractical for
anyone to expect a private organization to enforce a restraining order, it is
up to the person who has the restraining order along with the police to enforce
it, not for other people too.
I know
I am going to take a lot of flak for my thoughts and certainly this should have
been handled better by Watchtower, but it is also looking at the different
sides of this matter.
