Candace Conti Lawsuit -- Your opinion?

by DesirousOfChange 12 years ago 59 Replies latest 12 years ago members private

• 

  Chaserious 12 years ago

  A person who's thirteen years of age or older is old enough to assume some responsibility for themselves. Thirteen to fifteen isn't the age I had in mind when I said “minors.”

  Dude, seriously? So I should assume when responding to you that you aren't using the dictionary definition of words but your own special definition that only you are aware of?

  And if you think that no one has any responsibility to prevent sexual abuse of kids who are 13 and older, I don't even know how to respond. Many of the Sandusky victims were around that age. Was it their fault?

  Link
• 

  Prime 12 years ago

  I tried to get my head around your comment that two thirds of US inmates are Christian. Are you suggesting that more Christians go to jail than the regular population? The majority of Americans self-identify as Christians (72-75%) (Wiki). So there's no greater proportion of incarcerated Christians. Are you suggesting that there are as many criminals in a Kingdom Hall as one can find amongst the general population? That certainly could be so. Does this absolve elders from any responsibility?

  I also take umbrage to your suggestion that the Jehovah's Witnesses are doing as much as any other Christian organization to protect the flock. This is simply not true. My denomination has an entire "Plan to Protect" program for its youth workers, and every worker undergoes a criminal check before being approved to work with children. Other safeguards are in place for instance, doors all have window inserts so that passers-by can observe what is going on in the classroom. Hall monitors also check in.

  A minor (under the age of eighteen) left alone with an adult out in service, doesn't have these safeguards. Especially if the predator takes the child to a private place.

  Those statistics were taken from the Pew Forum.
  
  http://www.pewforum.org/Government/religion-in-prisons.aspx#various
  
  On average, the chaplains surveyed say that Christians as a whole make up about two-thirds of the inmate population in the facilities where they work.
  
  I said, "there are more “Christians” in prison than those unaffiliated with a religious organization."
  
  "Affiliated" means a person shares the same groupthink as church goers and likely has or will attend(ed) a church before or after imprisonment. The point, is that a large portion of criminals are affiliated with Christendom's churches, so the circumstances in this lawsuit could exist in numerous organizations.
  
  It was never claimed that the perpetrator in this case used the door-to-door ministry to maneuver the plaintiff into a “private place.” Such an opportunity would not present itself if her parents were in the car group. The claim was that the perpetrator was taking the plaintiff off in a car by himself. It's already been stated that, "the only way Kendrick would have been able to take the plaintiff to his home, is if the plaintiff's parents gave Kendrick explicit permission to take their daughter off in a car by himself." If the plaintiff's claims are true, the parents were allowing this man to take their daughter "out in service."
  
  That's the equivalent of a parent allowing someone to take their kid to a church sponsored recreational activity at a public park where all are welcome to participate, and because the child was subjected to harm while out and about, the church is liable.
  
  It's already been stated, "there are many organizations that host formal and recreational activities on public property where parents are welcome or encouraged to bring their children provided they're properly supervised. No such activities has ever had any connection to a lawsuit."
  
  The 10/01/2012 letter to the BOE goes beyond what most organizations (with the same organizational structure as Jehovah's Witnesses) endeavor to do in response to child abuse. Organizations with a rigorous child protection policy...
  
  "Other safeguards are in place for instance, doors all have window inserts so that passers-by can observe what is going on in the classroom."
  
  ...have activities exclusively for children where it's a formality that they're separated from their parents.

  Link
• 

  Prime 12 years ago

  That is an important point. JWs cannot hide behind the confessional rules, as Catholics were able to, because Witnesses did not confess on the understanding that it is strictly between the priest and God. The process has always been for the elders to report to headquarters.

  Does it really matter, that the circumstances through which a person may confess something to an elder differs from what's commonly understood and accepted?
  
  A principal ensues.
  
  If Jehovah's Witnesses wanted to hide behind any legal statute, they could easily adjust their tenets and protocols accordingly.
  
  http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=evid&group=01001-02000&file=1030-1034
  
  CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 1030-1034
  
  1032. As used in this article, "penitential communication" means a communication made in confidence, in the presence of no third person so far as the penitent is aware, to a member of the clergy who, in the course of the discipline or practice of the clergy member's church, denomination, or organization, is authorized or accustomed to hear those communications and, under the discipline or tenets of his or her church, denomination, or organization, has a duty to keep those communications secret.
  
  1034. Subject to Section 912, a member of the clergy, whether or not a party, has a privilege to refuse to disclose a penitential communication if he or she claims the privilege.
  
  Miscellaneous Defendants Watchtower and North Fremont Congregation's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 6
  
  The members of Kendrick’s family present were not “unnecessary third persons to the communications.” It is necessary for the Court to view “no third person” to mean no unnecessary third person in order to avoid an constitutional establishment of religion.
  
  This Court and society in general may be more familiar with confessions of those involving one priest (clergyman) and a penitent. However, this does not allow that to be the standard for “penitential communications” for all religions. The procedures and protocols of the Jehovah’s Witnesses faith require at least two elders to speak to a penitent and that conversations with families of the penitent are still considered con?dential and must be maintained as such by the elders. This was particularly true in this instance where the two elders were required by the Bible to counsel and reprove Kendrick before all onlookers to his sin (i.e., Evelyn and Andrea). (1 Timothy 5:20.) This Court cannot require one religion’s standard to be the standard for all religions. This would result in the Court becoming overly involved in the purely ecclesiastical disciplinary matters of a religion or favoring one religious practice over another.

  If a "third person" wasn't informed, Kendrick couldn't have been stripped of his position as a ministerial servant. Persons with his track record don't qualify for a leadership position or special assignment in the congregation. If a report can't be made to a branch office of the Watchtower Society, this man would be unidentified if he changed congregations.
  
  These procedures and protocols involving a “third person” serve as a protective agent to the Christian congregation. They're certainly not “unnecessary third persons.” In this case, this statute was referenced in response to the plaintiff's attorney's demands that a person's identity be disclosed to the church. Even in states that do not acknowledge clergy-penitent privilege, no one has to disclose a person's identity to their church, officials are only responsible for alerting the authorities. Mr. Simons wrote off the church defendant's reference to California evidence code 1030-1034 as an inapplicable privilege for no good reason.
  
  If those attacking Jehovah's Witnesses were actually interested in the well being of children, they would be more concerned with the law. The law in its present state allows religions that consist of hundreds of millions of members a legal loophole for the nondisclosure of abuse, including not alerting the authorities.

  Link
• 

  Prime 12 years ago

  Dude, seriously? So I should assume when responding to you that you aren't using the dictionary definition of words but your own special definition that only you are aware of?

  And if you think that no one has any responsibility to prevent sexual abuse of kids who are 13 and older, I don't even know how to respond. Many of the Sandusky victims were around that age. Was it their fault?

  There was one of Sandusky's victims that was 12-13. The “Second Mile” was a charity founded by Sandusky for underprivileged youth, at-risk children. This venerability may have been why the victim remained silent. Most persons 13 and up will respond to a violent assault the same way an adult will. Start yelling, call 911, tell your parents, etc. A person 13 and up is generally cognizant of safety issues. If you don't like 13, how about 14 or 15? This is somewhat irrelevant, as the plaintiff in this case was not 13 or older.

  Link
• 

  Simon 12 years ago

  Prime: however you want to dress things up, your organization is mendacious and hardly the shining light of righteousness that one would expect if they were being directed by God.

  You "defense" seems to consist of "well, every religion does it". That's pitiful. It's also sick.

  Why can't you just condemn their vile inaction and the perfect environment they create for the sicko's in their midst?

  Why must you defend them?

  What goes through your mind that you are so enamoured with what is just a legal printing organization that you defend them in the abuse of children?

  Sick, sick, sick and misguided.

  Link
• 

  problemaddict 12 years ago

  Prime I agree with you on one thing, and that is that the law is flawed as it related to faith based organizations. That is no doubt because of the fendamentalist zealot nature of our predominantly Christianized culture. But these are some key things you are missing not with the mind, but with the heart.

  If the organization is no part of this world, why do their personal steps not go farther than the worlds in this regard? Why keep information secret? Objectively it is difficult for someone (with or without an agenda of sorts), to look at the sanctioned actions of these congregations which are not in principle autonomous, and say that the well being of the image of the organization was not the paramount concern.

  In discussing this case with some brothers locally, they told me they wouldn't want to get "involved with the police". I asked them why not, and they were afraid of being sued. Unbelieveable. These brothers came off as pretty intelligent, yet here they were with absolute ignorance guiding their decisions.

  The sad fact is that if a child approaches them with an allegation of molestation, its a slow and go method of INTERNAL investigation, when the policy should simply be that the authorities are notified of the accusation. Then if they want to investigate internally its all good! In addition, if a former abuser comes into the hall, this should not be information that only elders and their spouses (and friends), are privy to.

  From a biblical perspective, shouldn't the "spirit" of the law be what JW's try to hold to, and not worry so much about the letter of it? It just screams hypocricy. That being said, I think JW's don't have more of a problem with this than society as a whole. But they are not handling it correctly by their own standards that is for sure.

  13-15 year olds are still minors and easily manipulated. You mgiht want to re-think that viewpoint.

  Elders are hardly qualified to investigate a crime, wouldn't you say?

  Link
• 

  jgnat 12 years ago

  So your defence is that there should be lots of Christian criminals out there?

  As long as the WTS hides pedophiles, concerned about its image rather than right, children will continue to be put in harm's way.

  You are correlating a church picnic to field service (one recreational, the other mandatory)?

  Link
• 

  GLTirebiter 12 years ago

  A person who's thirteen years of age or older is old enough to assume some responsibility for themselves. Thirteen to fifteen isn't the age I had in mind when I said “minors.”

  A minor who has reached thirteen years of age is old enough to be attractive to a predator, yet young enough to be naive about the predator's intentions. They are included in the age range called "minors" for good reason; they need protection more than they realize.

  Link
• 

  The Quiet One 12 years ago

  "A person who's thirteen years of age or older is old enough to assume some responsibility for themselves. Thirteen to fifteen isn't the age I had in mind when I said “minors.” -- @PRIME.. Would you say, then, that a child aged 13-15 does not require parental supervision whilst in field service? You seem to suggest that is so.. In which case it would be acceptable for an overseer to assign the child to work with someone other than their parents at any time, would it not? It could be commonplace, even.. You also seem to suggest that most 13 year olds would be able to react to any abuse in the best way and (presumably) fight back, inform the authorities and tell their parents..Upon what do you base this assertion? And another point, when you state your opinion as to how 'most' 13 year olds would react to sexual abuse, you craftily change the wording to 'violent assault'.. Perhaps you thought that misleadingly focusing on one type of abuse in your example, rather than having the hypothetical child 'merely' molested/touched etc, would lend more credibility to your absurd claim that a 13 year old is quite capable of taking care of themselves when it comes to pedophiles and predators? I've already stated that I have worked in field service with people other than my parents many times from my childhood onwards, as have others here.. Your illustration regarding the church social event needs some serious improvement. How many of such events are viewed as vital, life-saving work that must be attended..even if parents are not available or willing to take the children and they need to attend with another adult. A direct, non-evasive response to my points would be appreciated.

  Link
• 

  metaspy 12 years ago

  I have to add that in the 3 congregations I attended separating minors from parents to go in service was a regular occurance. Not once while in the JWs did I ever think twice about it. These were your bros and sisters. Prime is completely off the mark when he defends with that line of reasoning

  Link