Re: The Church's Policies & Procedures for Reporting Sexual Abuse

[smac97]

See here:

Quote

Jury trial set for Idaho Falls man accused of rape
Mike PriceMike Price, EastIdahoNews.com
Crime Watch   Published at 11:51 am, April 10, 2018

IDAHO FALLS — An Idaho Falls man, charged with raping a local teen, is set to face a jury next month.

Kalin Christensen, 21, appeared in court Monday for a pretrial conference. Christensen is facing one charge of rape where the victim is three or more years younger than the perpetrator.

In October 2017, police received a referral from the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare about a 15-year-old teenage girl who had reported to her Mormon bishop that she had been sexually active with multiple adults.

Of the seven adult encounters reported, most of the men were 18-years-old when the victim was 16-years-old and were not in violation of the law. However, two of the encounters occurred when the victim was 15-years-old. Those two encounters, one with Christensen who was 20 at the time, and the other with an 18-year-old Jefferson County man, were in violation of the law. According to the Idaho Repository, that 18-year-old has not been arrested or charged.

The encounter with Christensen was most concerning to the victim’s parents because the victim alleges the incident was also violent.

I think the Joseph Bishop controversey has given rise to a lot of discussion about what the LDS Church should do regarding allegations of sexual abuse.  Some folks seem to want the Church to do more, but are pretty vague on what "more" means.

As it stands, the Church has a pretty good set of policies and procedures in place.  When these policies are followed, the result is . . . well, stories like the one above.  A 15-year old girl confessed to her bishop regarding sexual activity.  Her bishop, I suspect, contacted the Church's retained counsel via the bishops' helpline, who in turn likely facilitated the reporting of this issue to the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, which in turn referred the matter to police, who in turn have worked with prosecutors to bring charges against the young man.

Idaho's age of consent is 16, so Mr. Christensen appears to be guilty of at least statutory rape.  Whether force was involved, however, is in dispute:

Quote

Court documents show Christensen was known to the family and had recently returned from a Mormon mission when the alleged incident took place. Christensen had been visiting the victim’s family when he and the victim chose to go get ice cream, but instead drove up to Iona Hill.

The victim told investigators Christensen parked the car and allegedly started kissing and touching her inappropriately. She told him she did not want him to do that because she was in a relationship.

According to documents, the victim said she repeatedly told Christensen to stop and that she felt uncomfortable, but eventually “just gave in.” She alleges she tried to stop having sex mid-encounter, but Christensen physically forced her to perform oral sex.

Christensen denies the allegations. He said it was victim’s idea to go to the hill and she was the one that started kissing him. He said she told him she liked him and wanted to have sex with him.

Christensen told investigators he was the one who stopped the sex mid-encounter, because he felt guilty because he was a recently returned missionary. He admitted to having sex with the teen, however, he denied ever being forceful with the victim or making her perform oral sex.

Documents say Christensen was aware of the victim’s age.

Christensen is scheduled to face a jury on May 5.

As with the Bishop matter, there are some ambiguities here.  The accused clearly did something wrong, and admits it, but denies that "it" was forcible rape.  As to that issue (whether the encounter involved force), it may come down to he said / she said.  

In any event, such legalities are going to be determined in a courtroom by a jury.  That is how it should be.

In other words, the Church's already-in-place policies and procedures . . . worked, and worked well.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 10, 2018 by smac97

[HappyJackWagon]

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

See here:

I think the Joseph Bishop controversey has given rise to a lot of discussion about what the LDS Church should do regarding allegations of sexual abuse.  Some folks seem to want the Church to do more, but are pretty vague on what "more" means.

As it stands, the Church has a pretty good set of policies and procedures in place.  When these policies are followed, the result is . . . well, stories like the one above.  A 15-year old girl confessed to her bishop regarding sexual activity.  Her bishop, I suspect, contacted the Church's retained counsel via the bishops' helpline, who in turn likely facilitated the reporting of this issue to the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, which in turn referred the matter to police, who in turn have worked with prosecutors to bring charges against the young man.

Idaho's age of consent is 16, so Mr. Christensen appears to be guilty of at least statutory rape.  Whether force was involved, however, is in dispute:

As with the Bishop matter, there are some ambiguities here.  The accused clearly did something wrong, and admits it, but denies that "it" was forcible rape.  As to that issue (whether the encounter involved force), it may come down to he said / she said.  

In any event, such legalities are going to be determined in a courtroom by a jury.  That is how it should be.

In other words, the Church's already-in-place policies and procedures . . . worked, and worked well.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Yep. Let the courts do their legal thing.

But the church can also do its thing by holding a DC for Christianson.

I would recommend the church not call this fellow to a high position of authority or accuse the victim of fabricating the story or generally being untrustworthy.

[Robert F. Smith]

59 minutes ago, smac97 said:

...........Her bishop, I suspect, contacted the Church's retained counsel via the bishops' helpline, who in turn likely facilitated the reporting of this issue to the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, which in turn referred the matter to police, who in turn have worked with prosecutors to bring charges against the young man..............

Do we in fact know that the bishop used the helpline?  It is a reasonable assumption, I'll give you that, Spencer.  The crucial question is whether the helpline counsel then contacted Idaho authorities, and, if so, whether that is a permissible breach of cleric-penitent confidentiality.  If it is a breach, can the accused claim that illegal source of information at trial -- fruit of the poisoned tree?

[Robert F. Smith]

27 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yep. Let the courts do their legal thing.

But the church can also do its thing by holding a DC for Christianson.

I would recommend the church not call this fellow to a high position of authority or accuse the victim of fabricating the story or generally being untrustworthy.

Aside from accepting the criminal court judgments, the local LDS authorities also have a kind of "typhoid Mary" problem on their hands and an inability to talk about it publicly.

[Jeanne]

4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Aside from accepting the criminal court judgments, the local LDS authorities also have a kind of "typhoid Mary" problem on their hands and an inability to talk about it publicly.

This should change...did anybody in the sacrament meetings/sunday school...discuss the latest in what is in the news about the church...why or why not??? 

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Do we in fact know that the bishop used the helpline? 

No.  But it's a pretty strong guess.  Note that "police received a referral from the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare."  A bishop, acting on his own, probably would not know to contact this department, and would instead have contacted the police directly.  On the other hand, the Bishops' Helpline attorneys would know to contact the IDHW first, and they would then conduct a preliminary investigation (since a minor child was involved) and make recommendations to the police.

9 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It is a reasonable assumption, I'll give you that, Spencer.  The crucial question is whether the helpline counsel then contacted Idaho authorities, and, if so, whether that is a permissible breach of cleric-penitent confidentiality. 

I really doubt there was any "breach."  State law can limit the scope of the priest/penitent privilege, such as by mandating allegations (though probably not confessions) of abuse made to clergy.  I suspect Idaho state law includes such a mandate.  If so, then there was no "breach" because the privilege does not apply.

Also, the helpline attorneys often work with bishops to persuade the victim to authorize the bishop to disclose the abuse to law enforcement, even when such authorization is ultimately irrelevant (since reporting is mandatory under state law anyway).  The rationale, I think, is that helping the victim be a part of the reporting process can help the victim feel empowered and in control (law enforcement would probably want to know if the disclosure was voluntary, so that helps as well).

We would be having a very different discussion if the alleged perp had disclosed to his bishop.  Again, confessions of abuse (by the perp) are treated very differently from allegations of abuse (by a purported victim).  

9 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

If it is a breach, can the accused claim that illegal source of information at trial -- fruit of the poisoned tree?

I don't think so.  The news report states that the bishop involved in this received a confession from the victim, not the accused.  His constitutional rights were not violated in any way by the girl talking to her bishop, and the bishop complying with mandatory reporting requirements under state law.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

See here:

I think the Joseph Bishop controversey has given rise to a lot of discussion about what the LDS Church should do regarding allegations of sexual abuse.  Some folks seem to want the Church to do more, but are pretty vague on what "more" means.

As it stands, the Church has a pretty good set of policies and procedures in place.  When these policies are followed, the result is . . . well, stories like the one above.  A 15-year old girl confessed to her bishop regarding sexual activity.  Her bishop, I suspect, contacted the Church's retained counsel via the bishops' helpline, who in turn likely facilitated the reporting of this issue to the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, which in turn referred the matter to police, who in turn have worked with prosecutors to bring charges against the young man.

Idaho's age of consent is 16, so Mr. Christensen appears to be guilty of at least statutory rape.  Whether force was involved, however, is in dispute:

As with the Bishop matter, there are some ambiguities here.  The accused clearly did something wrong, and admits it, but denies that "it" was forcible rape.  As to that issue (whether the encounter involved force), it may come down to he said / she said.  

In any event, such legalities are going to be determined in a courtroom by a jury.  That is how it should be.

In other words, the Church's already-in-place policies and procedures . . . worked, and worked well.  

Thanks,

-Smac

You really think the church does a good job with their polices and procedures?

I submit you are ignorant of what other church's do on this front. I know because of a major client of my firm that I cannot disclose. We assist them with these issues. 

Based on what they do, the LDS church is in the dark ages on these things. 

In other words, no, the LDS Church policies don't work well and almost not at all. And that is why the LDS Church pays and will continue to pay lots of $$ to settle.

[Calm]

Smac, if this is too far off topic, I will delete it.

I found this while looking for an up-to-date reference on Idaho's reporting law (as of Aug 2015, it was one of 18 states that mandated reporting for child abuse and neglect, but didn't specify clergy so might be challenged).

Evangelical groups are apparently also having struggles over how to respond to abuse and I thought their challenges might interest some people for a comparison, including pushes for change...no need to discuss.

http://sandpointreader.com/sex-abuse-among-evangelicals-worse-catholics/

----

Quote

The crucial question is whether the helpline counsel then contacted Idaho authorities, and, if so, whether that is a permissible breach of cleric-penitent confidentiality. 

Law for Idaho reference:

https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubpdfs/clergymandated.pdf

Looks like an excellent reference for child abuse reporting by clergy, though as they explain laws frequently change so may be out of date.

Quote

In approximately 18 States and Puerto Rico, any person who suspects child abuse or neglect is required to report it.3 This inclusive language appears to include clergy but may be interpreted otherwise. 

Alleged violent rape of a minor (15 year old) would fall under child abuse, I assume.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

No.  But it's a pretty strong guess.  Note that "police received a referral from the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare."  A bishop, acting on his own, probably would not know to contact this department, and would instead have contacted the police directly.  On the other hand, the Bishops' Helpline attorneys would know to contact the IDHW first, and they would then conduct a preliminary investigation (since a minor child was involved) and make recommendations to the police.

This referral could have also come from the parents of the girl. It was previously mentioned that they were particularly upset with the Christianson relationship because of the violence. The bishop may have been involved in contacting authorities but I see no reason to assume that's what happened. It sounds more like the parents, than the bishop.

I really doubt there was any "breach."  State law can limit the scope of the priest/penitent privilege, such as by mandating allegations (though probably not confessions) of abuse made to clergy.  I suspect Idaho state law includes such a mandate.  If so, then there was no "breach" because the privilege does not apply.

Also, the helpline attorneys often work with bishops to persuade the victim to authorize the bishop to disclose the abuse to law enforcement, even when such authorization is ultimately irrelevant (since reporting is mandatory under state law anyway).  The rationale, I think, is that helping the victim be a part of the reporting process can help the victim feel empowered and in control (law enforcement would probably want to know if the disclosure was voluntary, so that helps as well).

This is a good point. I was initially thinking that it would violate Christianson's penitent privilege but he's not the one who confessed so I see no reason why the bishop couldn't make contact with legal authorities.

We would be having a very different discussion if the alleged perp had disclosed to his bishop.  Again, confessions of abuse (by the perp) are treated very differently from allegations of abuse (by a purported victim).  

I don't think so.  The news report states that the bishop involved in this received a confession from the victim, not the accused.  His constitutional rights were not violated in any way by the girl talking to her bishop, and the bishop complying with mandatory reporting requirements under state law.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No.  But it's a pretty strong guess.  Note that "police received a referral from the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare."  A bishop, acting on his own, probably would not know to contact this department, and would instead have contacted the police directly.  On the other hand, the Bishops' Helpline attorneys would know to contact the IDHW first, and they would then conduct a preliminary investigation (since a minor child was involved) and make recommendations to the police.

This referral could have also come from the parents of the girl. It was previously mentioned that they were particularly upset with the Christianson relationship because of the violence. The bishop may have been involved in contacting authorities but I see no reason to assume that's what happened. It sounds more like the parents, than the bishop.

I suppose the referral could have come from the parents.  But the news article specified that "police received a referral from the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare about a 15-year-old teenage girl who had reported to her Mormon bishop that she had been sexually active with multiple adults."  So the bishop is the most likely vector, IMO.

Such things happen with bishops all the time, by the way.

Quote

 

I really doubt there was any "breach."  State law can limit the scope of the priest/penitent privilege, such as by mandating allegations (though probably not confessions) of abuse made to clergy.  I suspect Idaho state law includes such a mandate.  If so, then there was no "breach" because the privilege does not apply.

Also, the helpline attorneys often work with bishops to persuade the victim to authorize the bishop to disclose the abuse to law enforcement, even when such authorization is ultimately irrelevant (since reporting is mandatory under state law anyway).  The rationale, I think, is that helping the victim be a part of the reporting process can help the victim feel empowered and in control (law enforcement would probably want to know if the disclosure was voluntary, so that helps as well).

This is a good point. I was initially thinking that it would violate Christianson's penitent privilege but he's not the one who confessed so I see no reason why the bishop couldn't make contact with legal authorities.

 

Yep.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, Teancum said:

You really think the church does a good job with their polices and procedures?

In the main, yes, I really do.  It's not a matter of just thinking or guessing.  I have had multiple direct experiences with the Church handling allegations of abuse in accordance with the law, and in having bishops work with the Helpline to make sure of that.

I have also encountered several instances of the Church going well of its way to reduce risks of abuse.  I can't elaborate, though.

Quote

I submit you are ignorant of what other church's do on this front. I know because of a major client of my firm that I cannot disclose. We assist them with these issues. 

Based on what they do, the LDS church is in the dark ages on these things. 

Well, I'd like to better understand what you mean here.  What is being done in other churches that is not being done in the LDS Church?  Criminal background checks?

Quote

In other words, no, the LDS Church policies don't work well and almost not at all. And that is why the LDS Church pays and will continue to pay lots of $$ to settle.

Actually, the policies work quite well when followed.

Still, I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 10, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

Here's some interesting stuff on legal risks which churches can run into: http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/200401/200401_78_legalrisks.cfm

Thanks,

-Smac

[provoman]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Do we in fact know that the bishop used the helpline?  It is a reasonable assumption, I'll give you that, Spencer.  The crucial question is whether the helpline counsel then contacted Idaho authorities, and, if so, whether that is a permissible breach of cleric-penitent confidentiality.  If it is a breach, can the accused claim that illegal source of information at trial -- fruit of the poisoned tree?

 

I will not dispute Smac on the hotline.

However, Idaho exempts clergy from mandatory reporting when the communication is made in a confessional type setting or other setting deemed confidential.

 

Separately I wonder how Sam Young feels about this case. Sexual based questions asked to a minor leads to discovery of a crime.

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, provoman said:

Separately I wonder how Sam Young feels about this case. Sexual based questions asked to a minor leads to discovery of a crime.

That's a good question.  But the scope and propriety of such questions is very important, and perhaps should be addressed via training for bishops.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Danzo]

There was a case in these parts recently where the bishop went to the police station with the guy who was doing the abusing so he could turn himself in.

[Danzo]

http://portlandtribune.com/wbi/152-news/254634-124882-nmhs-grad-pleads-to-sex-crimes

"At the hearing, Lipton and Deputy District Attorney Jennifer Gardiner told Abar that Pippert himself went to police and confessed what he had done.

Not only had no charges been filed at that time, but detectives were not investigating the matter.

“Absent his doing that, this would have remained undiscovered,” Gardiner said.

Lipton said Pippert — who is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, according to his missionary page on mormon.org — was accompanied to the police station by his bishop."

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, Danzo said:

There was a case in these parts recently where the bishop went to the police station with the guy who was doing the abusing so he could turn himself in.

I had a friend, who was a bishop at the time, who encouraged a perpetrator of abuse to turn himself in.  They got on the phone together right then, in the bishop's office, and called the police.

The man ended up doing several years in prison, and it destroyed his marriage and his relationship with his children.  But the children who had been victimized were protected from continuing abuse.

And then there's this story:

Quote

An Arizona judge is being investigated on allegations of sexually abusing a girl from when she was 13 until she reached adulthood, The Associated Press has learned.

The alleged victim, now 25, told investigators last year that Pinal County Superior Court Judge Steven Fuller touched her genitals and buttocks repeatedly and also showed her pornography, according to a police report obtained by The Associated Press.

...

The alleged abuse occurred years ago and was reported in late September to police in the Phoenix suburb of Mesa by a lawyer for the Mormon church who said the alleged victim revealed the alleged abuse to her bishop. She spoke with investigators several weeks later, saying she was coming forward after being encouraged to do by Paul Babeu, a family friend who was the Pinal County Sheriff from 2009 through 2016.

...

The lawyer for the Mormon church went to police in Mesa, thinking that was where some of the alleged abuse occurred. Mesa police initially investigated but turned over the case to Pinal County authorities after discovering the alleged abuse happened in Pinal County.

How many stories are there like these?  Where bishops facilitate "repentance," which includes both spiritual components (asking God for forgiveness) and temporal (ceasing the misconduct, making restitution, facing the legal consequences, etc.), and also facilitate the reporting of abuse to law enforcement when the victim discloses?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 11, 2018 by smac97

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

...........................................

I really doubt there was any "breach."  State law can limit the scope of the priest/penitent privilege, such as by mandating allegations (though probably not confessions) of abuse made to clergy.  I suspect Idaho state law includes such a mandate.  If so, then there was no "breach" because the privilege does not apply.

Also, the helpline attorneys often work with bishops to persuade the victim to authorize the bishop to disclose the abuse to law enforcement, even when such authorization is ultimately irrelevant (since reporting is mandatory under state law anyway).  The rationale, I think, is that helping the victim be a part of the reporting process can help the victim feel empowered and in control (law enforcement would probably want to know if the disclosure was voluntary, so that helps as well).

We would be having a very different discussion if the alleged perp had disclosed to his bishop.  Again, confessions of abuse (by the perp) are treated very differently from allegations of abuse (by a purported victim).  

I don't think so.  The news report states that the bishop involved in this received a confession from the victim, not the accused.  His constitutional rights were not violated in any way by the girl talking to her bishop, and the bishop complying with mandatory reporting requirements under state law.

.........................

I misunderstood:  So the victim was the complainant and did not want confidentiality.

However, are you saying that a perp in the confessional could not be ratted out?  In the case of a Roman Catholic priest, even if he is a mandated reporter, cannot report the crime disclosed in the confessional.  I don't think state law can breach that.  In fact, if a Roman Catholic priest does breach confidentiality, he is subject to excommunication.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

..............................

How many stories are there like these? .........................

Undoubtedly many.  There is no way we could know the full extent of that, unless the Church attempts to keep records of it.

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I misunderstood:  So the victim was the complainant and did not want confidentiality.

Well, I'm not sure.  The point is that, in many jurisdictions, what the complainant/victim wants is immaterial.  Disclosure is mandatory.  

6 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

However, are you saying that a perp in the confessional could not be ratted out? 

I am saying that, from a legal perspective, a confession of abuse by Person Z is treated very differently from an allegation of abuse asserted by Person Y against Person Z.

A confession implicates several constitutional issues, including the Free Exercise Clause in the First Amendment, which is the basis for the priest/penitent privilege.  

6 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

In the case of a Roman Catholic priest, even if he is a mandated reporter, cannot report the crime disclosed in the confessional.  I don't think state law can breach that.  In fact, if a Roman Catholic priest does breach confidentiality, he is subject to excommunication.

I'm not sure of the particulars as to the privilege as it relates to Catholic priests.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Well, I'm not sure.  The point is that, in many jurisdictions, what the complainant/victim wants is immaterial.  Disclosure is mandatory.  

I am saying that, from a legal perspective, a confession of abuse by Person Z is treated very differently from an allegation of abuse asserted by Person Y against Person Z.

A confession implicates several constitutional issues, including the Free Exercise Clause in the First Amendment, which is the basis for the priest/penitent privilege.  

I'm not sure of the particulars as to the privilege as it relates to Catholic priests.

Thanks,

-Smac

It would be the same for any pastor of any religion.

[smac97]

An update:

Quote

IDAHO FALLS — A local man accused of raping a 16-year-old has pleaded guilty to an reduced charge as part of a plea agreement.

Kalin Christensen, 21, pleaded guilty to felony injury to a child. He had originally been charged with rape where the victim is 16- or 17-years-old and the perpetrator is three or more years older.

In exchange for pleading guilty to the amended charge, the prosecution will recommend Christensen be given a rider and, if he successfully completes the rider program, he will be placed on probation for five years. The agreement is non-binding on the court, meaning the judge has the discretion not to follow the terms of the agreement and Christensen will not be able to withdraw his guilty plea.

...

Christensen is scheduled to be sentenced July 9.

-Smac

[Tacenda]

Does anyone know anything about this case, are they speaking the truth in the article. Just saw it on my FB feed...

BYU-HAWAII SUSPENDS FEMALE STUDENT WHO REPORTED A BRUTAL ASSAULT OF A FEMALE STUDENT

Brigham Young University-Hawaii (BYUH) failed to respond to our request for an official response on Inês Almeida's suspension and the events that transpired after a female student was brutally assaulted by her boyfriend infront of the BYUH Fitness center.

Upon her hire at the BYUH Fitness Center, Inês did not receive any formal training nor did she sign a confidentiality or privacy agreement from BYUH. The university only started training student workers on how to properly utilize the university surveillance cameras and provide training on privacy laws and university policies till after Inês was suspended.

On the day of the brutal assault and while it was in progress, another female who tried to stop the assault of the female had called BYUH security; they did not respond immediately; frustrated, she then called the Honolulu Police Department.

A family member of the assaulted victim reached out to us and shared her disgust and heartache of having to see the female victim suffer a year long mental, emotional, and physical abuse by her boyfriend, and then to add to the injury, the trauma of being "suspended and punished by the university immediately" without putting first and formemost "the proper counseling and urgent care she needed for recovery".

The male student who brutally assaulted his girlfriend ironically has been given the same punishment given to Inês and the assulted female; he will be back at BYUH after a year.

Inês is two semesters away from completing her student teaching certificate requirements. Her student visa has been revoked and it will be financially difficult for her to return to Hawai'i and getting a new visa after one has been revoked is a very difficult process. She leaves Hawai'i this coming Tuesday.

#BYUH #BYUHawaii #LDSCES #Laie #NorthShore #Koolauloa

http://www.kitv.com/clip/14351626/byu-student-assault

La'ie Voice Term & Conditions
https://goo.gl/AbP3Dj

[Calm]

Her Facebook says she is leaving Hawaii (she was a senior last year iirc) and that is all at least back to Feb, but no other news outlet is reporting this.

I find it extremely hard to believe that she got in trouble for 911ing.  It is not clear as written who did what as the article has another woman calling first BYU and then local police.

Edited May 25, 2018 by Calm

[Amulek]

According to the television segment that was linked, Almeida wasn't suspended for reporting the assault. She was suspended for taking a recording from the University's surveillance tapes and providing it to the victim's family.  

I can understand her frustration at the school for it's slow response to the assault incident involving her friend, but the solution to that frustration isn't to steal surveillance footage from the University. 

Edited May 25, 2018 by Amulek