Posts by AbusedandPissed

27

Is it clergy privilege?

by StarTrekAngel in

just wanted to pose the question to the group and see what the general opinion is vs what the wt may have claimed in other cases.. we all know that they have argued over clergy privilege when elder learn of a crime but keep quiet about it.

regardless of what one may feel about this, lets assume for a minute that they are correct.. all elders are directed to contact the branch when they learn of a case of child abuse.

would the conversation between the elder and the branch be considered under the "clergy privilege"?

AbusedandPissed

The Deleware court actually clarified this:

"If Section 909 were to be interpreted narrowly, the effect would be to advance certain religions over others. To apply Section 909 on a denomination by denomination basis, the Court would have to engage in an excessive entanglement with religion.

To avoid a finding that Section 909 is unconstitutional, the statute may be interpreted more generically. A broader reading may be justified because the terms at issue are neither defined, nor upper case (which could indicate that the terms are more akin to proper titles)."

"Conclusion

The Section 909 privilege exemption from the requirement to report child abuse and neglect, if narrowly interpreted, is unconstitutional on its face. The terms "priest," "penitent," and sacramental confession" literally apply only to select denominations. The Delaware Constitution prohibits laws that give preference to any religion. However, Section 909 potentially can be read to apply to all religions."

11

JW elders told abused girl’s parents not to report sex offender (another one)

by Tahoe in

jw
friends

https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/gloucester-news/jehovahs-witness-elders-told-abused-1636907.

a bradford man's sex offence against a little girl was kept quiet for 23 years because elders of the jehovah's witnesses church persuaded her parents not to report him, a court was told.. robert lee's crime in the forest of dean was not revealed until the victim had grown up and went to the police, gloucester crown court heard on friday.. .

both the victim's family and lee were jehovah's witnesses at that time, said prosecutor kerry barker.. he told the court that having avoided justice, lee, formerly of coleford, but now of alexandra road, bradford, went on to commit further child sex offences in 2008 and 2016.. lee, who used the surname howarth at that time, admitted indecent assault of the girl in march 1995 in coleford when he was aged just 17.. sentencing lee to two years jail suspended for two years and ordering him to sign the sex offender register for 10 years judge ian lawrie qc said he was 'concerned' at the church's advice to the mother not to report him.. he also placed lee under a 10 year sexual harm prevention order.. “i've raised concerns about how this came to the attention of your church authorities and was not reported.

AbusedandPissed

Kramer:

Interesting that the UK ministers have just dropped a proposal to make this a reality.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ministers-mandatory-reporting-suspected-child-abuse-a8241441.html

Granted it wasn't going to deal with religious bodies but this is interesting what the paper said about this:

"The Government said the consultation received more than 760 responses from social workers, police officers, local government, children's charities, educators and health professionals, victim support groups, and other members of the public.

The majority of responses disagreed with the concept of introducing new statutory requirements.

The proposals would have placed caretakers, caterers and secretaries at risk of criminal action.

Ministers concluded that the evidence received does not demonstrate that either of the proposals would sufficiently improve outcomes for children - pointing to feedback suggesting the measures could risk creating unnecessary burdens, divert attention from the most serious cases and hamper professional judgment."

27

Is it clergy privilege?

by StarTrekAngel in

just wanted to pose the question to the group and see what the general opinion is vs what the wt may have claimed in other cases.. we all know that they have argued over clergy privilege when elder learn of a crime but keep quiet about it.

regardless of what one may feel about this, lets assume for a minute that they are correct.. all elders are directed to contact the branch when they learn of a case of child abuse.

would the conversation between the elder and the branch be considered under the "clergy privilege"?

AbusedandPissed

The thing that the law doesn't focus on but that is commonly misstated is that it must be a confession and if someone doesn't call themselves a clergy member, which WT does. The law says who is a member of the clergy and what is meant by the communicaiton. Look again at Kanasas law that again someone can prevent the member of the clergy from informing the authorities.

Notice that the communication can include that of seeking God's mercy or forgiveness, but it goes beyond that. It includes moral obligations. I have not done the research and cannot speak intelligently on if that would include seeking practical advice from a spiritual leader.

Also note how point "2) the term "regular minister of religion" means one who as his or her customary vocation preaches and teaches the principles of religion of a church, a religious sect, or organization of which he or she is a member,".

60-429. Penitential communication privilege. (a) Definitions. As used in this section, (1) the term "duly ordained minister of religion" means a person who has been ordained, in accordance with the ceremonial ritual, or discipline of a church, religious sect, or organization established on the basis of a community of faith and belief, doctrines and practices of a religious character, to preach and to teach the doctrines of such church, sect, or organization and to administer the rites and ceremonies thereof in public worship, and who as his or her regular and customary vocation preaches and teaches the principles of religion and administers the ordinances of public worship as embodied in the creed or principles of such church, sect, or organization; (2) the term "regular minister of religion" means one who as his or her customary vocation preaches and teaches the principles of religion of a church, a religious sect, or organization of which he or she is a member, without having been formally ordained as a minister of religion, and who is recognized by such church, sect, or organization as a regular minister; (3) the term "regular or duly ordained minister of religion" does not include a person who irregularly or incidentally preaches and teaches the principles of religion of a church, religious sect, or organization and does not include any person who may have been duly ordained a minister in accordance with the ceremonial, rite, or discipline of a church, religious sect or organization, but who does not regularly, as a vocation, teach and preach the principles of religion and administer the ordinances of public worship as embodied in the creed or principles of his or her church, sect, or organization; (4) "penitent" means a person who recognizes the existence and the authority of God and who seeks or receives from a regular or duly ordained minister of religion advice or assistance in determining or discharging his or her moral obligations, or in obtaining God's mercy or forgiveness for past culpable conduct; (5) "penitential communication" means any communication between a penitent and a regular or duly ordained minister of religion which the penitent intends shall be kept secret and confidential and which pertains to advice or assistance in determining or discharging the penitent's moral obligations, or to obtaining God's mercy or forgiveness for past culpable conduct.

286

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

by Simon in

seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.

it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.

it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.

AbusedandPissed

There is supposed to be a ruling on a case involving a Christian florist in Washington soon. Most experts are really questioning if the high court will actually make a broad precedent-setting ruling or just punt it again. Kennedy is talking about retirement so that would remove the swing vote for most cases and the President would probably appoint another conservative justice, assuming the GOP keeps the Senate Majority.

BTW conservative members of the court don't necessarily mean Republican-leaning, though it often does, it means that the justice looks at the original intent of the framers more than believing that it is a living document that must change with the times.

42

Oregon: JW sexual abuse suspect arrested

by AndersonsInfo in

http://www.kptv.com/story/37498850/sheriff-jehovahs-witness-sexual-abuse-suspect-arrested-in-clackamas-co. .

sheriff: jehovah's witness sexual abuse suspect arrested in clackamas co.. posted: feb 13, 2018 5:39 pm cstupdated: feb 13, 2018 6:21 pm cst.

by fox 12 staff.

AbusedandPissed

he can ask all he wants. Doesn't mean that a ADA would accept the offer.

286

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

by Simon in

seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.

it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.

it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.

AbusedandPissed

Again the supreme court never answered this question at all.

27

Is it clergy privilege?

by StarTrekAngel in

just wanted to pose the question to the group and see what the general opinion is vs what the wt may have claimed in other cases.. we all know that they have argued over clergy privilege when elder learn of a crime but keep quiet about it.

regardless of what one may feel about this, lets assume for a minute that they are correct.. all elders are directed to contact the branch when they learn of a case of child abuse.

would the conversation between the elder and the branch be considered under the "clergy privilege"?

AbusedandPissed

In Kansas also look at how the law is written.

(b) Privilege. A person, whether or not a party, has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent a witness from disclosing a communication if he or she claims the privilege and the judge finds that (1) the communication was a penitential communication and (2) the witness is the penitent or the minister, and (3) the claimant is the penitent, or the minister making the claim on behalf of an absent penitent.

Notice that the law is written that the person making the communication can prevent the disclosing of the communication. So in Kansas, if I go up to a priest and tell them that I have molested someone and say I prevent you from going to the police by the law the priest cannot go to the police.

27

Is it clergy privilege?

by StarTrekAngel in

just wanted to pose the question to the group and see what the general opinion is vs what the wt may have claimed in other cases.. we all know that they have argued over clergy privilege when elder learn of a crime but keep quiet about it.

regardless of what one may feel about this, lets assume for a minute that they are correct.. all elders are directed to contact the branch when they learn of a case of child abuse.

would the conversation between the elder and the branch be considered under the "clergy privilege"?

AbusedandPissed

The privilege is defined by the law not what you consider yourself to be.

27

Is it clergy privilege?

by StarTrekAngel in

just wanted to pose the question to the group and see what the general opinion is vs what the wt may have claimed in other cases.. we all know that they have argued over clergy privilege when elder learn of a crime but keep quiet about it.

regardless of what one may feel about this, lets assume for a minute that they are correct.. all elders are directed to contact the branch when they learn of a case of child abuse.

would the conversation between the elder and the branch be considered under the "clergy privilege"?

AbusedandPissed

Parents of Minor Child v. Charlet,

It dealt with the victim telling the priest of the sexual abuse. The victim sued the priest and the diocese over them not reporting the abuse. The victim revoked the privilege in the civil case. The priest and the diocese refused to testify because of how Louisana law is written both the priest and the person giving the communication can invoke the privilege. The diocese and priest said that it is canon law not to divulge the communication ever except within the priesthood. The court just last year ruled that because of how the law is written that the priest and the diocese are prevented from providing testimony.

Actually very interesting that case went to the court of appeals twice for two separate issues. At one time the court actually ruled that the mandatory reporting was unconstitutional but that was overturned.

27

Is it clergy privilege?

by StarTrekAngel in

just wanted to pose the question to the group and see what the general opinion is vs what the wt may have claimed in other cases.. we all know that they have argued over clergy privilege when elder learn of a crime but keep quiet about it.

regardless of what one may feel about this, lets assume for a minute that they are correct.. all elders are directed to contact the branch when they learn of a case of child abuse.

would the conversation between the elder and the branch be considered under the "clergy privilege"?

AbusedandPissed

Finkelstein:

The only problem is that there are states and countries where the privilege states that a member of the clergy is not allowed to report it. Not that it is an option or not. Louisana, for example, their Supreme Court ruled in that fashion.