Jehovah Witnesses and Sexual Abuse of Children

Originally posted by twhitehead
The link you gave shows JW lawyers claiming first amendment rights to keep child abuse cases secret. So the OP is accurate.

It also shows a JW member stating that another JW member confessed to committing child abuse. He did not report it to the police - nor was the congregation told.

Penitent priveledge

Known as the clergy–penitent privilege, clergy privilege, confessional privilege, priest–penitent privilege, clergyman-communicant privilege, and ecclesiastical privilege; it is an application of the principle of privileged communication that protects the contents of communications between a member of the clergy of any religious faith (a “clergy” is a minister, priest, rabbi, or other similar functionary of a religious organization, or an individual reasonably believed to be so by the person consulting him) and a penitent, who shares information in confidence.

The First Amendment is largely cited as the jurisprudential basis. The earliest and most influential case acknowledging the priest–penitent privilege was People v. Phillips (1813), where the Court of General Sessions of the City of New York refused to compel a priest to testify. The Court opined:

It is essential to the free exercise of a religion, that its ordinances should be administered—that its ceremonies as well as its essentials should be protected. Secrecy is of the essence of penance. The sinner will not confess, nor will the priest receive his confession, if the veil of secrecy is removed: To decide that the minister shall promulgate what he receives in confession, is to declare that there shall be no penance...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priest%E2%80%93penitent_privilege

Almost all states in the US recognise penitent privilege.

You will now tell us why this is an attempt to cover up child abuse as the OP alleges and why its an attempt to cover up child abuse using the first amendment as a basis, also alleged by the OP.

It must be noted that in the UK there is no such thing as penitent privilege and that civil law therefore takes precedence. Where there is no civil law making the reporting of child abuse mandatory penitent privilege may apply. This of course is not exclusive to Jehovahs witnesses as once again the OP falsely portrays, but is incumbent upon all minsters of religion, lawyers as well as accountants (termed client confidentiality).

A further aspect of this is that of corroboration, required by Biblical standards and presently enshrined in Scottish law, that being that there needs to be two sources of corroborating testimony, not necessarily two witness, but two corroborating sources, one of which may be circumstantial.

The actual legal record of Jehovahs witness with regard to child abuse in the US as a whole is particularly small in comparison to its existence in society as a whole and with other religious organisations. The OP also fails to mention this, but then again, it doesn't make for good tabloid reading.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The actual legal record of Jehovahs witness with regard to child abuse in the US as a whole is particularly small in comparison to its existence in society as a whole and with other religious organisations.

If there is secrecy surrounding the problem ~ and, for example, JW lawyers claim first amendment rights to keep child abuse cases secret ~ how do you know what the "actual legal record of Jehovahs witness with regard to child abuse" is?

Originally posted by FMF
If there is secrecy surrounding the problem ~ and, for example, JW lawyers claim first amendment rights to keep child abuse cases secret ~ how do you know what the "actual legal record of Jehovahs witness with regard to child abuse" is?

Because one can examine the number of recorded convictions for child abuse within a particular organisation. This represents the actual legal record.

If you think that this legal record is wrong then please provide evidence that it is wrong, merely making allegations that its so low because of an alleged cover up will not substantiate this allegation, the facts are that Jehovahs witnesses have in comparison a very small legal record of child abuse convictions.

Lastly you will now state why penitent privilege is an attempt to keep child abuse cases secret as you have put it. What evidence do you have that its an attempt to keep child abuse cases secret for this is in fact the crux of the matter and what the OP alleges. Also what problem are you referring to?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Also what problem are you referring to?

Instances of sexual abuse of children being covered up or kept secret.

Originally posted by FMF
Instances of sexual abuse of children being covered up or kept secret.

for which you have provided no evidence nor any evidence that the low instances of legal convictions of Jehovahs witnesses for child abuse (about seven in the US for the last one hundred years) are a consequence of a cover up which you have also alleged.

Perhaps you may fair better and tell us why the legally established precedent of penitent confidentiality also constitutes an attempt by Jehovahs witnesses or anyone else for that matter of seeking to use legal means to cover up child abuse.

1. Do you have any evidence that this was specifically instigated by Jehovahs witnesses for the purpose of covering up child abuse?
2. Do you have any evidence that its use is specifically intended for Jehovahs witnesses to be utilised for covering up child abuse?
3. Do you have any evidence that its intended purpose and use is being rendered illegal by Jehovahs witnesses?

In other words, do the minsters of Jehovahs witnesses (as do the ministers of any other religion) have the legal right, as per the US constitution and legal precedents already set, to make use of the provision of penitent confidentiality?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
for which you have provided no evidence nor any evidence that the low instances of legal convictions of Jehovahs witnesses for child abuse (about seven in the US for the last one hundred years) are a consequence of a cover up which you have also alleged.

Perhaps you may fair better and tell us why the legally established precedent of penitent co ...[text shortened]... witnesses? or that its intended purpose and use is being rendered illegal by Jehovahs witnesses?

I am not sure what allegations you think I made by asking you about the impact of secrecy, so I will ask the question again in an other way: would you expect legal efforts being made to maintain secrecy about instances of sexual abuse of children to result in a lower awareness of the extent of the problem and less cases ending up in the "legal record", as you put it?

Originally posted by FMF
I am not sure what allegations you think I made by asking you about the impact of secrecy, so I will ask the question again in an other way: would you expect legal efforts being made to maintain secrecy about instances of sexual abuse of children to result in a lower awareness of the extent of the problem and less cases ending up in the "legal record", as you put it?

I cannot put it any clearer than i have. You have provided no evidence that the low result of convictions are a direct result of a deliberate cover up, not a shred. Thankyou for demonstrating the fact. I will reiterate them again.

1. Do you have any evidence that penitent confidentiality was specifically instigated by Jehovahs witnesses for the purpose of covering up child abuse?
2. Do you have any evidence that its use is specifically intended for Jehovahs witnesses to be utilised for covering up child abuse?
3. Do you have any evidence that its intended purpose and use is being rendered illegal by Jehovahs witnesses?

In other words, do the minsters of Jehovahs witnesses (as do the ministers of any other religion) have the legal right, as per the US constitution and legal precedents already set, to make use of the provision of penitent confidentiality?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I cannot put it ant clearer than i have. You have provided no evidence that the low result of convictions are a direct result of a deliberate cover up, not a shred. Thankyou for demonstrating the fact.

I'll leave the allegations to the PBS programme and their specific merits can be discussed by those who want to. My question to you is about the impact of secrecy on child abuse being detected, prevented, ended and otherwise dealt with. Do you believe secrecy ~ even if it does have legal justification ~ is compatible with having a realistic or accurate estimation of the extent of the problem?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
You will now tell us why this is an attempt to cover up child abuse as the OP alleges and why its an attempt to cover up child abuse using the first amendment as a basis, also alleged by the OP.

I never said it was 'an attempt to cover up child abuse'. They did cover up child abuse. That is not disputed in the case. What is under discussion here is basically whether or not the first amendment or penitent privilege as the case may be is a reasonable defense.

I have not stated my opinion on the matter, so don't demand that I state an opinion that you made up for me.

This of course is not exclusive to Jehovahs witnesses as once again the OP falsely portrays,
The OP, does not specifically say that although I can see how it may be interpreted that way: hence several of us pointed out that it was not unique to JWs.

A further aspect of this is that of corroboration, required by Biblical standards and presently enshrined in Scottish law, that being that there needs to be two sources of corroborating testimony, not necessarily two witness, but two corroborating sources, one of which may be circumstantial.
Even when there is a confession?

Originally posted by FMF
I'll leave the allegations to the PBS programme and their specific merits can be discussed by those who want to. My question to you is about the impact of secrecy on child abuse being detected, prevented, ended and otherwise dealt with. Do you believe secrecy ~ even if it does have legal justification ~ is compatible with having a realistic or accurate estimation of the extent of the problem?

Sorry i am interested in facts. When you produce any let me know.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I never said it was 'an attempt to cover up child abuse'. They did cover up child abuse. That is not disputed in the case. What is under discussion here is basically whether or not the first amendment or penitent privilege as the case may be is a reasonable defense.

I have not stated my opinion on the matter, so don't demand that I state an opinion tha ...[text shortened]... corroborating sources, one of which may be circumstantial.
Even when there is a confession?[/b]

I will ask the same question to you that FMF dodged.

Do the minsters of Jehovahs witnesses (as do the ministers of any other religion) have the legal right, as per the US constitution and legal precedents already set, to make use of the provision of penitent confidentiality?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Sorry i am interested in facts. When you produce any let me know.

My question isn't about penitent confidentiality, or who it was or wasn't specifically intended for, or whether its intended purpose and use is being rendered illegal by anyone. My question to you isn't about any of that. My question is about what impact you think secrecy and cover up can have on dealing with child abuse and what impact you think it can have on whether one knows the true extent of the problem or not.

Originally posted by FMF
My question isn't about penitent confidentiality, or who it was or wasn't specifically intended for, or whether its intended purpose and use is being rendered illegal by anyone. My question to you isn't about any of that. My question is about what impact you think secrecy and cover up can have on dealing with child abuse and what impact you think it can have on whether one knows the true extent of the problem or not.

If its not about penitent confidentiality than ask it somewhere else. The entire crux of this matter is based on the provision of penitent confidentiality. You also have no right to ask questions while continually dodging those that are put to you. As i have stated, I am uninterested in your speculative questions, i am interested in facts, when you produce any, let me know, maybe we will have something to talk about.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
You also have no right to ask questions while continually dodging those that are put to you.

I don't have an answer to your question about penitent confidentiality; maybe someone else will answer it for you. And besides, your question doesn't really have any bearing on my question to you, which is about the impact of secrecy and cover up on dealing with child abuse within an institution.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am uninterested in your speculative questions, i am interested in facts, when you produce any, let me know, maybe we will have something to talk about.

It's not clear why you are refusing to talk about the impact of secrecy. Surely it is absolutely central to this topic?