Prologos: You are correct there are going to be false accusations or accusations that have been reported to the police and either charges were not brought or dropped. And if a person's name is released as a suspected child abuser without a conviction, they open themselves up for actual winnable law suits for libel. That is why when people are DF'ed in the congregation the only thing that is said is that "they are no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses." That is not a false statement, they don't announce someone is an adulterer, a liar, or an apostate, because if it comes out later that they are not any of those things then there is nothing can be claimed as a libel statement. That person is no longer a JW. And by the way that is why no one at least in the US can win a lawsuit over a disfellowshipping. Even the courts recognize the limit to release this information. In the Trey Bundy
Even the courts recognize the limit to release this information. In the Trey Bundy report Irwin Zalkin reports that he is bound by a court order not to release any information about the records he does have. So a judge listened to the arguments on both sides and weighed the facts and made a determination that the probative value of the release of the information does not outweigh the right of privacy that those named in those reports have. The California Court of Appeals also recognized that even though a plaintiff has the right to the information they don't necessarily have the right to disseminate that information or to use the information in a civil trial.
And yes the branch does use the records in order to prevent accused child molesters from ever holding a position of responsibility in the congregation. Everyone here agrees that an accused child molester should never hold a position of authority or responsibility, like a pioneer, MS or elder, so how do you suggest that they confirm if someone has been accused before or not?
Also, everyone here demands that the congregation report to the whole congregation when a suspected child molester is in the congregation if that is what I can glean from the comments. How about if the elders follow everything that is suggested here, where they are immediately reported to the police, but let's say that the police don't bring charges or the person is not convicted, should the whole congregation know about it?
Also, everyone here wants contradictory things. They want the congregation to have the duty to protect and warn but at the same time you demand that the congregation not delve into what each one of you do. You don't want them any control over anyones life except you want them to protect everyone from each other. The law does not recognize a duty to protect or a duty to warn for anyone that is not legally bound to do so. This is not just in cases of child abuse but it is a bedrock of jurisprudence, at least in the US, that you cannot force someone to protect someone from a third parties action. To do so would open up a huge can of worms. To illustrate a man is driving under the influence down a busy highway, and that driver hits an innocent victim who is responsible for the damage to the victim. It would be the driver who was under the influence. Under what you suggest with the duty to warn, every person that saw the drunk driver and did not warn the innocent victim would be liable for the injury. That is why there is a difference between the moral thing to do and the legal thing to do. The California Court of Appeals also recognized that there is a difference between misfeasance and nonfeasance. The court ruled that the congregation in the Conti case was not guilty of nonfeasance as a matter of law but they were guilty of misfeasance. But as we have seen juries vote with their heart but appeals courts vote with the law.
And I know that everyone here is going to say that Watchtower is just using legal loopholes to get out of doing the right thing. But that is the way things work, just like plantiffs use the legal system to their benefit, Watchtower uses the same law to it's.
