most jws don't see this as a problem.
they reason that.
just like the jws, the police will not convict a pedophile over the story of one victim alone, there must be collaborative evidence.
You finally made a reasonable argument. If you are going to make a legal argument then you have to do your research and not just think that the legal and the moral things are the same thing.
But again you also fall into the clergy-penitent privilege and what the US Supreme Court says about that privilege. That it is everyone's human right to seek spiritual advice from another person and expect that advice to be held in confidence.
most jws don't see this as a problem.
they reason that.
just like the jws, the police will not convict a pedophile over the story of one victim alone, there must be collaborative evidence.
Are you saying that the police dont respond to anonymous complaints even in cases of child abuse. In many states the statute allows for anonymous complaints. The police will investigate regardless of there is a name on the complaint or not
Do you understand what hearsay is? You can only testify based on what you know not on what someone told you
Yes a pedophile can be charged with two different cases. But that is not what your original scenario was. You said that they can inform on a different municipality. Even if that person was convicted previously the prosecutor cannot use that in the instant case.
most jws don't see this as a problem.
they reason that.
just like the jws, the police will not convict a pedophile over the story of one victim alone, there must be collaborative evidence.
Well, the first scenario doesn't actually require cooperation in fact even just an anonymous report which for some reason people here feel is terrible would do the same thing. Scenario 2 would again be hearsay, a witness can only describe what they know first hand and not based on someone else's report of telling them something. Scenario 3, would be inadmissible in most courts as prior bad acts which are not allowed in court cases.
most jws don't see this as a problem.
they reason that.
just like the jws, the police will not convict a pedophile over the story of one victim alone, there must be collaborative evidence.
The issue is too. If a child tells the elders that they were molested and the elders do cooperate with the police by saying that the child said, what good is that in court. That isn't evidence, that is hearsay evidence and no court in the western world allows the hearsay testimony.
most jws don't see this as a problem.
they reason that.
just like the jws, the police will not convict a pedophile over the story of one victim alone, there must be collaborative evidence.
I think that they do. they just looked at it from a neutral fact-finder position and not the hatred that other people have.
their research showed them that the two witness rule doesn't always apply.
older publications gave them something to think about!.
the watchtower society encourages jehovah's witnesses to read,examine, and learn from their older publications.examples:--------------------------------------watchtower/1999/10/1/pg.23"one day in about october 1941, while i was witnessing in themarketplace, someone spoke about a witness of jehovah who lived in anearby town.
Watchtower has actually always said that if someone is a victim of a crime it is not against the prohibition of taking your brother to court to report it.
most jws don't see this as a problem.
they reason that.
just like the jws, the police will not convict a pedophile over the story of one victim alone, there must be collaborative evidence.
Actually yes they would. They would go and investigate because that is their job. You would say that this person is saying this or that in general terms, you wouldn't give specifics and you wouldn't say that they admit to anything.
If you have a problem with the analogy take it up with the Vermont Supreme Court.
most jws don't see this as a problem.
they reason that.
just like the jws, the police will not convict a pedophile over the story of one victim alone, there must be collaborative evidence.
Well, it is because in most states the confidentiality says that it stands when it is communicated and handled in the manner of the discipline of that established denomination. That is how the Barry case was determined when it went to the state supreme court. The court asked, what about a client meeting with their lawyer if the lawyer is the partner in a firm and communicates with other people does that lawyer break the privilege? No, it is in the normal duty of their job. Even in the MacFarland case the court again ruled that even if it is seen by a number of people who are authorized to see it in their capacity of a religion and the information is of a spiritual nature that the privilege still exists.
most jws don't see this as a problem.
they reason that.
just like the jws, the police will not convict a pedophile over the story of one victim alone, there must be collaborative evidence.
That is the key thing. You need to get laws to change. Right now there is a legal reasoning behind not reporting. But if you remove that legal basis than that makes it different. The issue is that you cannot remove it from one religion and not alls, and that is where the fight is. You will be going up against all religions including Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims and every other religion that is legally defined as hierarchial not congregational.
i see there has already been discussion over lloyd’s new book how to leave the jehovah's witnesses.
this includes discussion around his personality, motives and financial gains.
i have written a foreword for this book, because it is an important topic that has not been covered in such a complete format before.
Let's be honest. He is making at least $1572 a month on his patreon account. He is monetizing his Youtube account. His funding accounts for his books raked in tens of thousands of dollars. These are actual facts not making stuff up.
