Child Abuse And The Mormon Response

[LDS_RM]

eraye, do you consider the Church responsible for the Bishops failures to report? At present, it does not appear that the Church was involved with the failures to report.

[Calm]

That being the case how do you justify statements such as this:

His/her statement "I am not favoring that the Church did not follow the law" is a double negative, thus s/he is saying that s/he views it likely the Church did follow the law, I believe. LDS_RM can correct me if I read it wrong.

Edited April 30, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Personally,I have a problem with the State making reporting mandatory.Is that the case with murder? rape?robbery? Of course there is a powerful moral obligation to report.

I believe it is for domestic violence and child abuse, the idea, I believe, is to stop something that may be ongoing, a continued threat whether to the original victims or other potential victims. If so, with that rationale it seems like all violent crimes should be reported due to the increased likelihood of it happening again once a person crosses the line.

I have seen too many cases where false accusations have ruined innocent lives and where the "authorities" have done a very poor job of investigating the truth of the matter.

This is my concern as well, both for any falsely accused and charges that get tossed due to improper handling of the legal issues....which makes in my view the use of the hotline a big plus.

Wiki had a description of mandated reporting for pretty much any form of abuse or neglect, even nonphysical. Varies with location of course. Add in required reporting of firearm injuries, I am wondering if knifing injuries are including as well, it would seem professionals may spend a large amount of their time writing up reports (since the law requires not only reporting by phone, but a written report).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandated_reporter

Edited April 30, 2012 by calmoriah

[ERayR]

eraye, do you consider the Church responsible for the Bishops failures to report? At present, it does not appear that the Church was involved with the failures to report.

No the church gives explicit instructions and a hotline for help in following those instructions. If the bishops involved did not follow procedure it is their own responsibility, not the churches. If you choose to ignore procedures, for whatever reason, whose choice is that? Who is responsible for your choices?

[wenglund]

I wish to join with Selek and others in condemning the trial by Internet being plied here. Such trials tend to constitute an unwarranted usurpation of authority, by people who likely don't know what they are talking about, and who too oft violate numerous judicial protocols intended to protect the innocent and avoid undue abuse. Let those who have whipped themselves into a self-righteous frenzy find some other venue their vigilantism. May I suggest the Huffington Post, the favored home for the insipid and banal.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[ERayR]

His/her statement "I am not favoring that the Church did not follow the law" is a double negative, thus s/he is saying that s/he views it likely the Church did follow the law, I believe. LDS_RM can correct me if I read it wrong.

It may be that I am misunderstanding him/her. If so, sorry. I do not follow double negatives well.

[LDS_RM]

I wish to join with Selek and others in condemning the trial by Internet being plied here. Such trials tend to constitute an unwarranted usurpation of authority, by people who likely don't know what they are talking about, and who too oft violate numerous judicial protocols intended to protect the innocent and avoid undue abuse. Let those who have whipped themselves into a self-righteous frenzy find some other venue their vigilantism. May I suggest the Huffington Post, the favored home for the insipid and banal.

Thanks, -Wade

are you suggesting then that we can not take a Bishop at his word, when he accepts guilt or no contest for an act? Are we also to understand that well reasoned deduction that are not offered as fact but meer possibilities is something.g that should not occur on this board.

But as for usurpation of authority, I wager none here have been authorized to speak authoritativly on behalf of the Church, so any defense of the Church here is just a well reasoned response, should this board not exist for the "trial by internet" of the Lds belief system.

[LDS_RM]

No the church gives explicit instructions and a hotline for help in following those instructions. If the bishops involved did not follow procedure it is their own responsibility, not the churches. If you choose to ignore procedures, for whatever reason, whose choice is that? Who is responsible for your choices?

I agree that the Church should not be responsible for the inactions or alledged inaction of Bishops.

[wenglund]

are you suggesting then that we can not take a Bishop at his word.

No. I am suggesting that we mind our own business and leave judgments of this sort to those rightly empowered and within a system that entails the appropriate checks and balances.

But as for usurpation of authority, I wager none here have been authorized to speak authoritativly on behalf of the Church, so any defense of the Church here is just a well reasoned response, should this board not exist for the "trial by internet" of the Lds belief system.

I wasn't speaking on behalf of the Church or defending the Church. I was speaking pragmatically and as an individual about the enormous impropriety of self-anointed busy-bodies like yourself ignorantly and wrongly adjudicating legal matters on the Internet. I say this without expecting you to comprehend.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rpn]

Innocents plead guilty to things they didn't do all the time, usually because they see no possibility that the outcome will be worse for them if they do than if they don't.

[sjdawg]

my idea for any issue involving legal issues like this is to call the police then the Church, let the cops figure out things and when the dust settles the Church can get involved if need be

I agree. That is the best response. Let the police investigate and determine if there has been any wrong doing.

[sjdawg]

I think your error is in stating that the fact that persons are CHARGED, means they didn't do something. Arguably it means a prosecutor believes the bishop didn't do it, but that doesn't mean the bishop didn't do it (and also doesn't mean that the bishop SHOULD have done it --- in the one case the suspected abuse WAS reported by multiple people with more first hand knowledge than the bishop).

Hasn't one of them already pled guilty?

[Zeta-Flux]

I agree. That is the best response. Let the police investigate and determine if there has been any wrong doing.

Except that in some states YOU could be breaking the law for such behavior. In some states it is ILLEGAL (for Bishops) to report child abuse due to the clergy privilege.

Furthermore, as pointed out by others, if it is reported the wrong way then that evidence could be thrown out and not used to help the individual. Calling the hotline provides you with the best chance of actually helping the person in need.

Edited May 1, 2012 by Zeta-Flux

[ERayR]

Duncan, on 26 April 2012 - 02:45 PM, said:

my idea for any issue involving legal issues like this is to call the police then the Church, let the cops figure out things and when the dust settles the Church can get involved if need be

I agree. That is the best response. Let the police investigate and determine if there has been any wrong doing.

Exactly the wrong approach for everybody involved.

[sjdawg]

Except that in some states YOU could be breaking the law for such behavior. In some states it is ILLEGAL (for Bishops) to report child abuse due to the clergy privilege.

Furthermore, as pointed out by others, if it is reported the wrong way then that evidence could be thrown out and not used to help the individual. Calling the hotline provides you with the best chance of actually helping the person in need.

Sorry, I didn't mean in cases in which it was done in confessional. I meant when the Bishop became aware of an allegation through other means. (victim complaint or otherwise).

[rpn]

Given the initial poster's position, thought you might like to read the advice from the May 2012 edition of "A Monthlly Publication of the Christian Law Association The Legal Alert" on child ministries: "...Third, every church must properly respond to abuse allegations. If abuse allegations are made, the pastor should immediately contactt the church's attorney to ensure proper handling of the situation. The church should then conduct an internal investigaiton of the allegations. You should inform the worker of the allegations and discuss the situation with the worker. You must also immediatley remove the accused from their position while the investigation is conducted. This protects the worker and the ministry. You should also contact your insurance carrier adn put them on notice. After discussing the findings with your attorney, you would then decide whether this situation requires reporting to the authorities. ..." (Emphasis added.)

And notice that this isn't even about allegations learned of in confessionals.

Other faiths have said how much they admire the LDS hotline, which was among the first, if not THE first of all faith group efforts to better address abuse allegations.

Edited May 7, 2012 by rpn