Yuku free message boards

Quote:

---

Thanks. That clears up my misunderstanding of your post, and I apologize that I didn't quite understand you the first time. However, it still leaves some questions regarding the original post. Waterrock seems to have made the following observations:

1. JW elders will not address alleged cases of child molestation unless there are multiple witnesses to it.

---

Quote:

---

2. In the absence of multiple witnesses, JW elders will attempt to pursuade the alleged victim to remain silent about the abuse.

---

Quote:

---

If both of his statements are essentially true, then further elaboration and explanation is futile. If Waterrock's assessments are not true, then perhaps you can explain the way JW elders actually handle accusations of child abuse within their congregations. There is no need to excuse an abhorent behavior if you can rebut it. But if you can't rebut it, there is no way to excuse it.

---

Quote:

---

--------------------
Define "address".
--------------------
I doubt that you lack the capacity to understand my post. All I can believe is that you are trying to illustrate something by all of this.

---

Quote:

---

Pretend, if only for a moment, that you are a religious leader of some type. And a child, male or female, comes to you complaining of abuse. What do you do, and why do you do it?

---

Quote:

---

So far, your argument has seemed to be that priests (and other religious leaders) are somehow legally restrained from reporting crimes to authorites. Do you really believe that to be the case? Can you point any code section, or any piece of legislation, whether it is federal, state or local, that prohibits a religious leader from disclosing any information he (or she) might have about a suspected case child abuse?

---

Quote:

---

But this isn't like attorney/client privilege (that exists in many states), which mandates that attorneys are legally prohibited from disclosing confidential conversations with their clients. Restrictions on what clergy members can disclose, and to whom they can disclose it, come from church laws, not from state laws. While it is true that, in most cases, a catholic priest cannot go to the police and report a crime that was confessed to him, it is only true because the catholic church prohibits him from doing so. When a priest chooses to ignore the catholic church, and does report a crime (which happens from time to time), police and prosecutors welcome his cooperation.

---

Quote:

---

So I guess what I am saying is that if JW elders tend not to report cases of child abuse to the police, it is because something in their religion prevents from doing it, not because the law prevents them from doing it.

---

Quote:

---

To some people, the source of the prohibition may not matter. But the distinction is important to me. If it is *legal* to report a crime, and if reporting the crime can protect someone, or prevent future crimes, the crime should be reported. If you choose not to report it only because your religion prohibits it, and you religion is a bona fide religion, our laws will protect you. But merely obeying our laws doesn't necessarily make you a good or moral person.

---

Quote:

---

--------------------
Exposing confidential matters does not necessarily make you a good person, either.
--------------------
If I witness (or have knowledge about) a crime and I am later questioned by the police, I must answer their questions, and I must answer them truthfully. If I am summoned to court, I must show up, I must testify and I must testify truthfully. If I fail to do any of these things, I can be charged with various crimes myself, such as obstruction of justice, filing a false police report, failure to appear, contempt of court, or purgery.

I am subjected to all of these laws despite the degree of confidence that may be involved.

---

Quote:

---

If my friend Fred says to me: <snip> Being told something "in confidence" does not remove my legal obligation to make a truthful report to the police, or testify truthfully in court. But for religious leaders, it is different. This seems to be a double standard.

---

Quote:

---

--------------------
Also, I don't believe either's testimony is admissible in court...

expecially since the elder would be at best a hearsay witness.
--------------------
Hearsay is evidence that is offered off-record, or out of court.

---

Quote:

---

In a practical sense, here is how it might work:

1. Fred tells his priest that he killed his wife and buried her in her back yard.
2. The priest, being conscientious, reports the potential crime. (At this point, the priest's report to the police is hearsay).
3. The police dig up the wife's body, and charge Fred with murder, based on the discovery of the body and the conversation he had with the priest (at this point, the record of the conversation, which is contained only in a police report, becomes evidence, which probably is, without corraboration, hearsay, and which may or may not be admissable).
4. The court summons the priest for his testimony, and the priest appears and testifies to the court, in the presence of the accused, about the conversation (at this point, it ceases to be hearsay, and becomes admitted evidence).

---

Quote:

---

What I want to know - what my question is - is whether JW elders routinely fail to report cases of child abuse.

---

Quote:

---

You seem to be happy addressing a different question - specifically, the question of whether JW elders *should be compelled* to report cases of child abuse. If you'll try to answer my question, I'll try to answer yours.

---