Did fellow Mormons cover up officer's baby molestations? (so titled)

[bluebell]

You might not feel that way if YOUR innocent child was molested and then you find out that fifteen people knew about the molester's history and did nothing to inform law enforcement. This is a very complicated, emotional issue and you can't expect that people are not going to react strongly to it.

This is where i fall on the issue.

It's easy for me to very high-minded and calm about this issue until i ask myself "if it were my kid that he had been molesting, would i still be all for the law that kept someone from reporting him'?

Under those circumstances, i don't believe i would.

[USU78]

You might not feel that way if YOUR innocent child was molested and then you find out that fifteen people knew about the molester's history and did nothing to inform law enforcement. This is a very complicated, emotional issue and you can't expect that people are not going to react strongly to it.

Dispassionate analysis should trump emotional self-interest.

[katherine the great]

This is where i fall on the issue.

It's easy for me to very high-minded and calm about this issue until i ask myself "if it were my kid that he had been molesting, would i still be all for the law that kept someone from reporting him'?

Under those circumstances, i don't believe i would.

Ditto. I think I can see and respect the idea behind it, but child molestation is such a horrid thing that its hard to want to extend ANY rights to the abusers--even though the logic of it is apparent.

[bluebell]

Dispassionate analysis should trump emotional self-interest.

If you are a parent would could dispassionatly analize the molestation of your child, then good for you. I am not a parent would could do that. The interest of my child would probably always trump anything else in my mind when it comes to this issue.

[bluebell]

Ditto. I think I can see and respect the idea behind it, but child molestation is such a horrid thing that its hard to want to extend ANY rights to the abusers--even though the logic of it is apparent.

Exactly. I'm not very logical when someone harms my child.

[katherine the great]

Dispassionate analysis should trump emotional self-interest.

Uh huh. And in a perfect world, law enforcement officers don't molest babies...

[USU78]

If you are a parent would could dispassionatly analize the molestation of your child, then good for you. I am not a parent would could do that. The interest of my child would probably always trump anything else in my mind when it comes to this issue.

There's a saying in the law: "Hard cases make bad law," precisely because of the tug on our emotions by hard fact patterns like the ones you list. Because of the tug, we need to be even more dispassionate than we'd usually be when crafting policy.

[Pahoran]

It seems more logical that the confession would be ruled inadmissable in court. Its hard to imagine a scenario where the abuser would press charges against the clergy or the police ever pursuing it.

Not only that, but I have heard that some US jurisdictions operate under a "Fruit of the poisoned tree" doctrine, such that if such a confession is inadmissible, so is anything that the authorities might develop therefrom. Thus, if the Bishop were to blurt out something told to him in confidence, it might jeopardise any subsequent prosecution.

Regards,

Pahoran

[USU78]

Not only that, but I have heard that some US jurisdictions operate under a "Fruit of the poisoned tree" doctrine, such that if such a confession is inadmissible, so is anything that the authorities might develop therefrom. Thus, if the Bishop were to blurt out something told to him in confidence, it might jeopardise any subsequent prosecution.

Regards,

Pahoran

All do.

[frankenstein]

I am all for a dispassionate analysis of why the Gov. should allow child molestation to go unreported, if the knowledge of said child molestation is learned by clergy from the pedophiles own confession.

What is the State interest in allowing child molestation to go unreported?

and by unreported, I mean what I have stated before

Clergy: Yes, I need to report a crime

911: when did this crime occur

clergy: apparently ongoing for 30 years. the victims are infants, and Doe Smith of SomeCity Idaho is the perpertraitor.

911: thank you for your report.

seriously, please someone provide why the State has a interest in not protecting the most vulnerable of society? We are willing to prevent people from marrying to protect children but are all for allowing children to be abused because of the source from which the abuse was know.....makes no dadgum sense at all.

[USU78]

What is the State interest in allowing child molestation to go unreported?

The State is not the answer to every question, other than questions in the nature of, "How did things get so fowled up?"

The State has no interest in getting between me and my confessor. My soul's health is between me and G-d and, at most, my confessor. The State has no business intruding into one of the most intimate relationships in my life.

You wanna talk about "get your laws out of my bedroom?" Yeah, pretty compelling argument,isn't it? It's led to a whole lot of State action getting slammed down by Courts.

Let's talk about "get your laws out of my confessional!" Your hysterical inability to see clearly beyond your own desire here prohibits you seeing that your wish to abolish the confessional is a tyranny of massive proportions. This place, above all places, is the place the State's ham fists must never intrude upon. This place, if the State intrudes into it, is the Holy of Holies of the individual. My free exercise rights have taken too many hits because too many Francises over the last century and a half thought it a "good idea."

No frickin' thank you. Keep your laws out of my confessional.

[frankenstein]

that wasn't very dispassionate.

so here it is cold and dispassionate.

The state seems to value a religious practice more than preventing child molestation.

Why does the state place a higher priority on a religious practice and a lesser priority on child molestation.

USU78 can you explain why you feel the higher priority is for a religious practice and why you seemingly consider preventing child molestation less important than a the confidentiality of a confession to child molestation?

The state has no interest in your soul, thus the state has no interest in protecting confessionals concerning child molestation.

[Pahoran]

that wasn't very dispassionate.

so here it is cold and dispassionate.

The state seems to value a religious practice more than preventing child molestation.

Why does the state place a higher priority on a religious practice and a lesser priority on child molestation.

USU78 can you explain why you feel the higher priority is for a religious practice and why you seemingly consider preventing child molestation less important than a the confidentiality of a confession to child molestation?

The state has no interest in your soul, thus the state has no interest in protecting confessionals concerning child molestation.

Step back, Frankie. Take a look around.

You will notice that the State protects all manner of confidential communications. For instance, lawyers aren't allowed to disclose the fact that their clients have confessed to multiple homicides. In some places, doctors aren't allowed to tell parents that their minor children are on birth control, getting treatment for STD's and/or seeking abortions. So insisting that clergy -- and only clergy -- be forced to break confidentiality would serve to target religious institutions.

But then, I suppose we "deserve" that for defending marriage, don't we?

Regards,

Pahoran

[USU78]

Why does the state place a higher priority on a religious practice and a lesser priority on child molestation.

Show us an instance where the only evidence, or at least the sine qua non evidence, in a child sex abuse case consisted of a confession by the perp to his confessor.

I didn't think you could. Thus falleth another Francis-crafted strawman.

Fact is, it isn't a matter of prioritizing one over another. That's a false dichotomy, which Francis well understands, since his tone is plainly flip throughout this thread.

USU78 can you explain why you feel the higher priority is for a religious practice and why you seemingly consider preventing child molestation less important than a the confidentiality of a confession to child molestation?

A strawman wrapped in a false dichotomy flavored with spam.

The state has no interest in your soul, thus the state has no interest in protecting confessionals concerning child molestation.

It SHOULD have no interest in my soul, your desire to make it so notwithstanding.

[frankenstein]

usu, you requested a dispassionate discussion.

i have shown the dispassion

States with mandatory reporting, require just about everyone, except clergy depending on the how the knowledge was gained, to report child abuse.

If the clergy confession is not prioritized then how do you explain that the clergy confession is given special favor over the victim and everyone else?

by making the exemption the state has shown its what it treats as more important. by making the exemption the state has shown the two - clergy confession and stopping child molestation - are exclusive of each other, and that confession to clergy is more important.

and rather than just ranting and raving about straw men, why not attempt to explain why what I claim is false, especially since the two (mandatory reporting/stopping child abuse and confession to clergy) are exclusive of each other.

surely you have some dispassionate reasoning for why the state should place the actor in better place than the victim.

--------------------------------------------

pahoran, you know not of what you speak. It is interesting that one of the alleged attorneys would bring up attorney/client without any discussion to why the system allows for it, (talk about false analogies)

pahoran, perhaps you can make an attempt.

why, in the case of child molestation, should the state favor the actor more than the victim, in a situation where the knowledge of the act and victimization was gained by clergy during a confession?

[ERayR]

It is a thin line

[Pahoran]

pahoran, you know not of what you speak. It is interesting that one of the alleged attorneys would bring up attorney/client without any discussion to why the system allows for it, (talk about false analogies)

I'm not one of the alleged attorneys. Not even allegedly.

Why do you think this is a false analogy?

pahoran, perhaps you can make an attempt.

why, in the case of child molestation, should the state favor the actor more than the victim, in a situation where the knowledge of the act and victimization was gained by clergy during a confession?

If you really want to be "dispassionate" about it, then let's take child molestation out of the equation, shall we?

Because I'm sure you understand that, if an exception were to be made for child molestation, it would never stop there; that would only be the thin end of the wedge. Once the state leveraged one cause c

[frankenstein]

pahoran,

thank you. as for my complaint about the analogy, I leave it to the attorney to explain why the two are comparable.

But my issue is only with the child abuse aspect, so I don't think it is fair to remove that aspect from the question. Are clergy exempted from other mandatory provisions? I am unaware of any other crime for which the general public and many professionals (failure to report could cause that person to loose their license) are required to report but clergy is not. Also, I don't think the "getting help" should apply to situations of child abuse.

Catholic Clergy are professional clergy, they are not trained counselors for child abuse. LDS "clergy" come in all shapes, lawyers, accountants, brick layers, what have you. Despite the wide range of professions in LDS Clergy, I feel confident in saying, none, if only a very very very small % of LDS Clergy MIGHT be qualified to provide appropriate "help" to persons who commit child molestation.

---------------------------------------------------

as for the spokesperson from the church claiming the church involvement lead to the conclusion of the matter in question, I question the validity and audacity of the person who made the claim. The article posted states that a fellow officer learned of the incident from church, which means someone spilled the beans who shouldn't have, or the wife of the actor told the other officer (which I kind of doubt the wife reported it). So I do not give much if any credit to the involvement of the local leaders.

--------------------------------------------------

[ERayR]

that wasn't very dispassionate.

so here it is cold and dispassionate.

The state seems to value a religious practice more than preventing child molestation.

Why does the state place a higher priority on a religious practice and a lesser priority on child molestation.

USU78 can you explain why you feel the higher priority is for a religious practice and why you seemingly consider preventing child molestation less important than a the confidentiality of a confession to child molestation?

The state has no interest in your soul, thus the state has no interest in protecting confessionals concerning child molestation.

The state doesn't.

[katherine the great]

--------------------------------------------------

as for the spokesperson from the church claiming the church involvement lead to the conclusion of the matter in question, I question the validity and audacity of the person who made the claim. The article posted states that a fellow officer learned of the incident from church, which means someone spilled the beans who shouldn't have, or the wife of the actor told the other officer (which I kind of doubt the wife reported it). So I do not give much if any credit to the involvement of the local leaders.

--------------------------------------------------

I'm not sure what they meant by that either, but the cop who got him to turn himself in is very active LDS himself and they both live in Eagle so they may even be in the same ward. I would not be surprised if it was the perp's wife who tipped him off as she was involved in the confession process and probably wanted him to go to authorities as requested by their bishop.

Okay, I just reread the article. This is the scoop: The other cop (Christensen) is on the high council and was asked not to sit in on the disciplinary council since it would force him to report the crime since he is a cop (but as a high councilman, it would be illegal for him to do so.) So, he sat outside the church to see who it was, recognized him and talked to him later to help him resolve the issue. At that point, Young confessed to Christensen--not as a church official, but as a friend and Christensen reported him and subsequently helped him turn himself in.

[Pahoran]

pahoran,

thank you. as for my complaint about the analogy, I leave it to the attorney to explain why the two are comparable.

But my issue is only with the child abuse aspect, so I don't think it is fair to remove that aspect from the question.

But you said you wanted to be "dispassionate." Why is it not "fair" to remove the passion-raising aspect for the purposes of discussion? If your argument cannot be made without the subtext of "What they're doing is so incomparably awful that it must trump all other considerations," then it's not really dispassionate, is it?

Are clergy exempted from other mandatory provisions?

They are generally, in civilised countries, not required to divulge confidential confessions.

So you need to come up with a dispassionate argument to support either that one crime in particular -- without dwelling upon what that crime might be -- should be an exception to the rule, or that the rule should be scrapped altogether.

I am unaware of any other crime for which the general public and many professionals (failure to report could cause that person to loose their license) are required to report but clergy is not. Also, I don't think the "getting help" should apply to situations of child abuse.

Why? You don't think that child molesters ever feel remorse or want to stop? You don't think they don't feel (in common with many people who show sexually aberrant behaviour) that their inclinations are unalterable?

Regards,

Pahoran

[frankenstein]

pahoran,

the dispassionate discussion is not blanket clergy confidentiallity, the dispassionate issue is why give clergy a pass concerning child molestation.

so by reducing the argument to protecting clergy confession for everything, seems to be moving the goal post, as it were.

What crimes mandate reporting?

The only crime I know that mandates reporting is child abuse in any form. If you can find other crimes which the general public are mandated to report but clergy are not then perhaps we can discuss moving the goal post. But as for the moment, the state has no interest in a persons "soul" as far as the state is concerned, it must be neutral as to heaven and hell, i.e. the state can have no religion, thus, there is no reason for the state to favor a actor over a victim when it comes to child abuse. another reason, the protection of a innocent defense person is of greater interest to the state, than whether or not a person will speak to clergy.

as for "civilised countries" lets not discuss other countries at the moment, because we could too easily loose site of the issue at hand.

as for "getting help" I do not think a clergy is qualified to provide "help" to a pedophile. Because I do not believe clergy are qualified to help these individuals, I also do not believe the state has reasonable or legitimate belief that the actor can get "help" from clergy.

Aren't most clergy essentially professional clergy with generally if not overwhelmingly, there only real substantive training is pontification? Save the LDS clergy for our discussion which could be qualified, but most likely would not be in a leadership position due to the qualifying skill requiring a license, which the law requires mandatory reporting from said licensed person.

As for remorse, I believe people can have remorse but still commit the act for which the person would be remorseful of.

For instance not to pick on a religion, but consider the issues that have come to light concerning Catholic Priest. The priest were known to commit certain acts, the priest were moved to a new location, where the priest committed the same act, and then another move, etc, etc etc.

[LeSellers]

Show us an instance where the only evidence, or at least the sine qua non evidence, in a child sex abuse case consisted of a confession by the perp to his confessor.

Wouldn't a confession be nothing more than hearsay anyway?

As testimony in court, I'd assume a reasonable defense attorney would object on that grounds, at the very least.

Lehi

[USU78]

Wouldn't a confession be nothing more than hearsay anyway?

As testimony in court, I'd assume a reasonable defense attorney would object on that grounds, at the very least.

Yup.

There is, moreover, this: The passing of mandatory reporting laws was a direct attack upon privileges and freedoms enjoyed by USmericans. The State seeks, by those laws, to curtail age-old liberties enjoyed by the individual. Mandatory reporting laws didn't exist prior to about 1974. The addition of clergy to the list of those compelled by the state to report the possibility of certain crimes having been committed didn't start until about 20 years after that.

What those statutes do is to deputize certain classes of persons to law enforcement. Churches and clergy have no business being part of the investigatory arm of the State's police power. It has nothing to do with the evidentiary value of the confession. That supposedly remains privileged, in that the clergyman cannot be compelled to testify (a very weak defense, I know, yet they make it). It is all about aiding law enforcement in its investigations of possibly criminal acts.

USU "Notices Francis refuses to take up his challenge" 78

[frankenstein]

Lehi, whether hearsay or not, the statement would be permitted (provided there is not something else to prevent the statement from being use in court). Look up hearsay, there are a bunch of things which are not hearsay, and there are things which are hearsay but are exceptions. So if someone came to you and said "Lehi, I have done terrible things, I did terrible things to children". You repeating the statement could be considered hearsay, but that statement could be used in Court.

additionally, I can not tell you have many "crimes" I have anonymously reported. Action was taken by the police, and arrests were made. I was never contacted, once I hung up the phone and sat and watched the arrests being made.

A clergy would not necessarily have to testify in court, and I have never mentioned anything about Court. I only address the reporting. A clergy reporting is no different that you or anyone else picking up the phone and reporting a crime. After you report, the police will take over and investigate.

I would that any post inclusion of clergy into mandatory reporting, was at the behest of religions which wanted to avoid public knowledge of the how bad or how often child abuse occur at the hand of religious leaders or members of said religion.

-------------------------------------

USU78, go read post #40, you refuse to rise to a challenge as well.