Originally posted by Proper Knob Sorry, I don't see how what you typed follows from what I posted. Have I missed something?
You are construing that penitent privilege is the same as deliberately concealing information from law enforcement. Penitent privilege was until fairly recently protected by law and in some places/states, still is. This has a bearing on the issue because the elders are ministers of religion and thought they were protected by penitent privilege. What transpires at a judicial committee is under the same guiding principles as penitent privilege. What this used to mean and may still do depending on where you live is that a minster of religion cannot divulge information to anyone. Now we are free to argue on the merits or otherwise of this, but it is, what is is.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie You are construing that penitent privilege is the same as deliberately concealing information from law enforcement. Penitent privilege was until fairly recently protected by law and in some places/states, still is. This has a bearing on the issue because the elders are ministers of religion and thought they were protected by penitent privilege. Wh ...[text shortened]... rwise of this, but it is, what is is.
I know what penitent privilege is, the issue of this is dealt with in the Watchtower memo I cited under the section titled 'Confidentiality'. The quote I posted is from the 'Crimes and Criminal Investigations' section. I don't see how you're linking penitent privilege with the text i posted from the memo.
If elders in a congregation have learnt of an allegation of say child abuse, why are they being instructed (in some cases) to form a judicial committee to 'handle the alleged wrongdoing' and keep matters 'confidential'? Why have they not been instructed to call the police?
Originally posted by Proper Knob I know what penitent privilege is, the issue of this is dealt with in the Watchtower memo I cited under the section titled 'Confidentiality'. The quote I posted is from the 'Crimes and Criminal Investigations' section. I don't see how you're linking penitent privilege with the text i posted from the memo.
If elders in a congregation have learnt of an ...[text shortened]... ongdoing' and keep matters 'confidential'? Why have they not been instructed to call the police?
Allegations are in themselves not conclusive. You are aware of course that allegations can be false and that some have had their lives and their livelihoods wrecked on the basis of false allegations.
The situation now is that if the brothers suspect that a child is at risk they are to immediately contact the police.
A report to the police or other appropriate authorities will be made immediately by the congregation elders if it is determined that a child is still at risk."
Originally posted by robbie carrobie You are construing that penitent privilege is the same as deliberately concealing information from law enforcement. Penitent privilege was until fairly recently protected by law and in some places/states, still is. This has a bearing on the issue because the elders are ministers of religion and thought they were protected by penitent privilege. Wh ...[text shortened]... rwise of this, but it is, what is is.
I can understand how someone can expect confidentiality if they confess their "sins" or some such, but can "penitent privilege" really be employed as a justification for keeping things like serious sex crimes against children secret from the authorities?
Originally posted by FMF I can understand how someone can expect confidentiality if they confess their "sins" or some such, but can "penitent privilege" really be employed as a justification for keeping things like serious sex crimes against children secret from the authorities?
If you wish to construe that penitent privilege is that same as 'keeping serious sex crimes against children secret from the authorities', then go ahead and it becomes rather self evident that once again you have not the faintest idea what you are talking about and seek to compensate for your ignorance by predictable misinterpretation. No one has claimed its a justification for anything except for you because thats the type of slime you post.
The most amusing thing is that you must think people are stupid and incapable of seeing through your slimey attacks and what becomes self evident is that your entire contribution to the forum is to attack others because of your own inadequacies in being able to contribute anything meaningful in a spiritual context.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie What transpires at a judicial committee is under the same guiding principles as penitent privilege. What this used to mean and may still do depending on where you live is that a minster of religion cannot divulge information to anyone.
So the person who hears the "confession" can tell the other members of something called "a judicial committee"? He doesn't have to keep the crimes secret from them, is that right? "Ministers" can tell other "ministers", there is no obligation to keep it confidential in such a case, have I understood correctly?
Originally posted by robbie carrobie You are construing that penitent privilege is the same as deliberately concealing information from law enforcement. Penitent privilege was until fairly recently protected by law and in some places/states, still is. This has a bearing on the issue because the elders are ministers of religion and thought they were protected by penitent privilege.
If the "confession" must be kept secret, how can the "minister" take any action to prevent further sex abuse or to protect children from being abused without the confidentiality of the confessed sex crimes being compromised?
Originally posted by robbie carrobie No one has claimed [penitent privilege is] a justification for anything except for you because thats the type of slime you post.
But aren't you citing this notion of "penitent privilege" as a justification for keeping the confessed deeds of a child sex abuser confidential?
Originally posted by robbie carrobie Allegations are in themselves not conclusive. You are aware of course that allegations can be false and that some have had their lives and their livelihoods wrecked on the basis of false allegations.
The situ ...[text shortened]... chtowerdocuments.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Child-Safeguarding-Policy-of-the-UK-Jan-2013.pdf
Of course allegations are not conclusive, but it's not a JW judicial committees role to investigate criminal matters and keep the findings of that committee confidential from the relevant secular authorities. Allegations, of say child sexual abuse, are to be investigated by the relevant trained professionals and not a group of elders from the local JW Kingdom Hall following vague guidelines from a 2,000 year old book.
Now I recognise that here in the UK mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse is now JW policy. But it's not in every country yet. Which is disturbing.
Originally posted by Proper Knob Of course allegations are not conclusive, but it's not a JW judicial committees role to investigate criminal matters and keep the findings of that committee confidential from the relevant secular authorities. Allegations, of say child sexual abuse, are to be investigated by the relevant trained professionals and not a group of elders from the local JW Ki ...[text shortened]... of child sexual abuse is now JW policy. But it's not in every country yet. Which is disturbing.
A judicial committee is formed to ascertain if there is any sinful conduct and what needs to be done about it. Using your own analogy the only persons who are qualified to deal with this spiritual aspect are Christian elders. One cannot call a plumber to do it, can they. It is a separate issue entirely from criminality. You would understand this if you understood penitent privilege which you clearly do not. If the brothers are concerned about abuse they will contact the proper authorities.
That mandatory reporting is not the law in other countries is because the law protects ministers of religion from divulging the confessions of penitents, regardless of what they have done because it is recognised that it is a scared bond of trust. Now you can argue about the morality of this if you like but the fact of the matter is and I think its well founded is that criminals are much less likely to come forward if they know that they will be reported and might never seek any help, clandestinely carrying on their abuse thus putting the vulnerable at even greater risk. This is not a justification for covering up anything as the slimey FMF has vilely attempted to insinuate, its a simple statement of fact.
I support mandatory reporting not because I think it will protect more children or bring more criminals to justice (it may infact have the opposite effect) but because it protects ministers of religion from false accusation by people too ignorant to understand their position.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie This is not a justification for covering up anything as the slimey FMF has vilely attempted to insinuate, its a simple statement of fact.
So you acknowledge no connection or link between this notion of "penitent privilege" and the fact that sex crimes not being reported to the authorities?
Originally posted by robbie carrobie Now you can argue about the morality of this if you like but the fact of the matter is and I think its well founded is that criminals are much less likely to come forward if they know that they will be reported and might never seek any help, clandestinely carrying on their abuse thus putting the vulnerable at even greater risk.
Do you have any evidence that supports the idea that the JW organization never reporting any allegations of child sex abuse to the authorities for five decades [in Australia according to the Royal Commission] - not even once - resulted in less child sex abuse than might otherwise might have been the case?
Originally posted by robbie carrobie I think its well founded is that criminals are much less likely to come forward if they know that they will be reported and might never seek any help, clandestinely carrying on their abuse thus putting the vulnerable at even greater risk.
Do you think there are any moral issues surrounding whether or not the perpetrators of serious sex crimes are prosecuted and, if found guilty, punished, and pertaining to whether victims (as well as society at large) are afforded some justice and protection in this way?
Originally posted by robbie carrobie Now you can argue about the morality of this if you like but the fact of the matter is and I think its well founded is that criminals are much less likely to come forward if they know that they will be reported and might never seek any help, clandestinely carrying on their abuse thus putting the vulnerable at even greater risk.
Do you think victims of sex abuse are more or less likely to come forward if they know that their religious organization is going to want to keep the abuse secret and will recognize some kind of "sacred" obligation to not tell the authorities?
Originally posted by robbie carrobie I support mandatory reporting not because I think it will protect more children or bring more criminals to justice (it may in fact have the opposite effect) ...
The "opposite effect"? So you think more criminals may be brought to justice under a "no mandatory reporting" system? And you think more children are protected from sexual abuse under a "no mandatory reporting" system? Is that what you mean by the "opposite effect"?
Christian Tolerance
30 Dec '16 20:492 edits
Back to Top