Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Are you hiding something FMF?

What are you on about?

Originally posted by FMF
What proportion of child abuse in your organisation results from people making "a confession of guilt"? What proportion are uncovered in other ways? How many child abusers has your organisation persuaded to turn themselves in to the authorities as in the wake of them making "a confession of guilt"? Some information about this might help decide whether the institutional secrecy is more important than tackling adults who have sex with children.

jw.org, write to them and ask. I don't have that information at hand.

Originally posted by FMF
What are you on about?

you seem reluctant to answer any of the questions that are put to you. In fact you have not answered a single one, i was simply wondering why you are so defensive. People when they are defensive seem to have something to hide.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Is a child abuser more or less likely to make a confession if they know that they will be betrayed.

Is a child abuser likely to make a confession if they know that making the confession will cause a huge international organisation to employ its resources to keep the abuse secret?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you seem reluctant to answer any of the questions that are put to you in fact you have not answered a single one, i was simply wondering why you are so defensive. People when they are defensive seem to have something to hide.

What am I defensive about?

Originally posted by FMF
Is a child abuser likely to make a confession if they know that making the confession will cause a huge international organisation to employ its resources to keep the abuse secret?

I would say they would be less inclined to make a confession than if they new that they would be betrayed, wouldn't you? Perhaps you can explain why they would be more inclined to make a confession if they knew that they would be betrayed?

Originally posted by FMF
What am I defensive about?

every single question that has been asked of you FMF, you have not answered a single one. Why not FMF, you seem to like asking questions, why cant you answer any?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I would say they would be less inclined to make a confession than if they new that they would be betrayed, wouldn't you?

But this is moot if you cannot demonstrate that these confessions result in prosecutions and punishment.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Its legal, lets get this straight, penitent confidentiality is legal. Why none of you could bring yourselves to acknowledge this i do not know. I am not a legal expert either and yet by availing myself of resources in the public domain I can determine that its legal.

Wow blood from a stone, man!

Now to the moral implications that you seem to ...[text shortened]... ent confidentiality would make a child abuser more or less likely to make a confession of guilt.

Morality is almost always about balancing different moral interests against each other.

There is almost nothing that balances against the necessity of stopping and removing
from society child molesters and paedophiles. So morally you should absolutely report,
even if you absolutely pinky swore you wouldn't before hand.


As for whether they are more likely to confess... Who cares??

If you don't report the confession of the crime and instead cover the crime up you are
not solving the problem, you are part of it. The only upside of a paedophile confessing
is if that confession leads to them being removed from society and punished and the
victims getting the support they need.

If the confessor simply says the equivalent of 10 Hail-Mary's and don't do it again then
what was the benefit from the confession that could be lost?

Originally posted by FMF
But this is moot if you cannot demonstrate that these confessions result in prosecutions and punishment.

No its not moot, I have not asked whether their confession is more or less likely to result in more or less convictions i have asked whether they are more or less likely to make a confession in the first place, to which you once again cannot bring yourself to answer.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
every single question that has been asked of you FMF, you have not answered a single one. Why not FMF, you seem to like asking questions, why cant you answer any?

But I did answer your question about "penitent confidentiality" on page 3. I said I didn't know if it legally allows people to have sex with children and then have it covered up by people belonging to the institution they are members of. I don't know. I would hope not. Maybe the deeds of child abusers can be legally kept secret for religious reasons, you tell me.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Morality is almost always about balancing different moral interests against each other.

There is almost nothing that balances against the necessity of stopping and removing
from society child molesters and paedophiles. So morally you should absolutely report,
even if you absolutely pinky swore you wouldn't before hand.


As for whether they are ...[text shortened]... Mary's and don't do it again then
what was the benefit from the confession that could be lost?

Fine you think that there is a moral obligation to report child abuse, thankyou for your honesty and clarity in this regard and that this moral obligation superseded the right of anonymity.

Whether they are more or less likely to confess is a salient point, stating who cares is not very helpful. For if a child abuser is more likely to make a confession in the knowledge that it is made in confidentiality, surely they would be more likely to seek help, rather than hiding it knowing that they face instant prosecution? Please not this is not in anyway intended to be an apology for child abuse, its simply a rational process.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No its not moot, I have not asked whether their confession is more or less likely to result in more or less convictions i have asked whether they are more or less likely to make a confession in the first place, to which you once again cannot bring yourself to answer.

The objective surely is to stop adults having sex with children. I don't see how the promise of institutional protection and cover up is going to do this. If the sex abusers are not prosecuted and removed from the vicinity of children that they might want to have sex with, I don't think the safety that abusers feel when they confess is going to necessarily further the objective which is: to stop adults having sex with children and to prosecute and punish it as one of the very worst kinds of crimes.

Originally posted by FMF
But I did answer your question about "penitent confidentiality" on page 3. I said I didn't know if it legally allows people to have sex with children and then have it covered up by people belonging to the institution they are members of. I don't know. I would hope not. Maybe the deeds of child abusers can be legally kept secret for religious reasons, you tell me.

we are in the process of discussion FMF, please stop your tantrums and be a good boy otherwise you will be made to stand under the nasty nelly cloud!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
For if a child abuser is more likely to make a confession in the knowledge that it is made in confidentiality, surely they would be more likely to seek help, rather than hiding it knowing that they face instant prosecution?

Does the child abuser get punished under the law of the land for his crimes if he confesses to his organisation?