Should Church Leaders Report Child Abuse When Confessed?

[ALarson]

I just saw this article:

"LDS Church leaders didn't report man who confessed to making child po*n, docs say" on the KUTV website (I can't post the link for some reason....but google that title and it will come up).

Here's a link to another article with the story:  https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2019/07/24/a-man-confessed-to-trading-illicit-images-of-kids-mormon-leaders-said-nothing/

Quote

 

A Utah man turned himself into law enforcement for viewing, making and distributing child pornography after his local church leaders failed to report it after his confession, court documents state. 

Bejamin Alyk contacted the Davis County Attorney's Office in 2018. He confessed to making and distributing child pornography when he was a teenager, according to documents obtained by Truth and Transparency Foundation, a nonprofit newsroom dedicated to promoting transparency within religious institutions.

 

I have to admit that I have mixed feelings about this.  I hate seeing anyone protected who is causing harm to a child and I do believe that a church leader should report them to the police (mainly if the abuse is still taking place and more children may be harmed).  

I'd like to hear other's opinions on this too.  I believe the clergy / member confession is something that does need to be safe and protected.  But, at the cost of more children (or anyone) being harmed or the law continued to be broken?  Should the church leaders have done more in the situation described in the article?

 

[MustardSeed]

Yes they should.  Therapists have to. 

[CV75]

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I just saw this article:

"LDS Church leaders didn't report man who confessed to making child po*n, docs say" on the KUTV website (I can't post the link for some reason....but google that title and it will come up).

Here's a link to another article with the story:  https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2019/07/24/a-man-confessed-to-trading-illicit-images-of-kids-mormon-leaders-said-nothing/

I have to admit that I have mixed feelings about this.  I hate seeing anyone protected who is causing harm to a child and I do believe that a church leader should report them to the police (mainly if the abuse is still taking place and more children may be harmed).  

I'd like to hear other's opinions on this too.  I believe the clergy / member confession is something that does need to be safe and protected.  But, at the cost of more children (or anyone) being harmed or the law continued to be broken?  Should the church leaders have done more in the situation described in the article?

Yes, my opinion is that it should be reported; I understand this to be the tenor of the Handbook instructions; and, there is a Church abuse hotline for leaders to call for guidance in doing that. The criminal justice system is needed to help the leader carry out his ecclesiastic responsibility for the flock, which is both temporal and spiritual, no matter how young or how sick a confessor might be.

[The Nehor]

Pretty sure under Utah law the testimony of the Priesthood Leaders would have been inadmissible under privilege laws. The privilege is not for the Bishop; it is for the confessor. The Bishop cannot claim the privilege to keep the confessor from talking to law enforcement but the confessor could block the testimony of the Priesthood leader.

I am not sure how I feel about the law either. I would like to see it tweaked to allow exceptions in some cases. I am betting it does include exceptions for immediate threats to children or if the person has said they are continuing to abuse children but that was not the case here. Maybe expand that even if there is no likelihood or indication of reabuse? I admit to some hesitancy because this would be throwing Catholics under the bus.

I would argue it worked out this time since the guy confessed to authorities and I suspect the Priesthood Leaders urged him to do so as a condition of repentance. If I was the Bishop or Stake President I would probably make it a condition of repentance.

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Yes they should.  Therapists have to. 

I agree.  Maybe some laws need to change?  Or even if technically they are within the law, what is the right thing for church leaders to do here?

If this part of the story (from the OP) is true, it's very troubling:

Quote

 

Alyk was sent back home to Utah, where he confessed once again to a Mormon disciplinary council consisting of local church leaders — likely 15 men that included the Stake President, two counselors, and “12 members of the local High Council.”

Despite all those confessions, nothing happened. He wasn’t punished. Law enforcement didn’t come after him. More importantly, he was free to be around children without any consequences.

It turns out law enforcement had no clue what he had done until he confessed directly to them eight months after that disciplinary council meeting.

That’s a long way of saying several Mormon Church leaders were aware they were harboring a pedophile, but they never told authorities, which left open the possibility that Alyk could have struck again.

 

I'm trying to figure out the timeline here, but if he continued to abuse children (as young as 4 years old) after his confession, that should not have been allowed, IMO.  It seems there was at least a 2 month period when the children were still available to him after confession.

And his sentence is ridiculous (again, IMO) even though I imagine the law was followed (they decided to prosecute him as a minor rather than an adult):

Quote

 

Alyk was finally charged with eight second degree felonies, including two for sexual exploitation of a minor. Officers had the chance to try him as an adult (with more severe penalties), but they charged him as a minor instead for reasons that are currently unknown.

Alyk was sentenced to “secure confinement in the Utah Juvenile Justice System until his 21st birthday.”

His 21st birthday arrived three months after that sentencing.

He was released last November. He now lives at home with his parents.

 

 

 

 

[ALarson]

20 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Pretty sure under Utah law the testimony of the Priesthood Leaders would have been inadmissible under privilege laws. The privilege is not for the Bishop; it is for the confessor. The Bishop cannot claim the privilege to keep the confessor from talking to law enforcement but the confessor could block the testimony of the Priesthood leader.

I am not sure how I feel about the law either. I would like to see it tweaked to allow exceptions in some cases. I am betting it does include exceptions for immediate threats to children or if the person has said they are continuing to abuse children but that was not the case here.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it appears that the day care was kept open in his parent's home (where he lived) for another 2 months after his confession.  If that is true, there was an "immediate" threat to the children who were coming into his home for that day care.  That is where the abuse took place and he preyed on these children that the parents were trusting his Mother to care for.

Quote

 

When he was 18, he embarked on a two-year Mormon mission trip in the Dominican Republic and, perhaps full of guilt, confessed everything to the man overseeing the mission.

Alyk was sent back home to Utah, where he confessed once again to a Mormon disciplinary council consisting of local church leaders — likely 15 men that included the Stake President, two counselors, and “12 members of the local High Council.”

.....

He adds that the in-home daycare was shut down in February of 2017, two months after Alyk returned home from his mission.

 

 

Edited July 25, 2019 by ALarson

[smac97]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Should Church Leaders Report Child Abuse When Confessed?

First, church leaders should obey the law of the land.

Second, I think the "law of the land" should include a priest-penitent privilege.  The laws governing this issue vary from state to state, but all states have at least some  form of the privilege.  See here:

Quote

All U.S. states have laws protecting the confidentiality of certain communications under the priest-penitent privilege. The First Amendment is often considered the basis of such a privilege. Sometimes, however, the privilege is tied more to the idea that certain conversations (like those between spouses, attorneys and clients, couples and marriage counselors, or doctors and patients) are presumptively privileged, are covered by a right to privacy, or enjoy a privacy mandated by considerations of public policy, than to First Amendment free exercise rights.

Third, the rationale for the privilege is substantively similar to that underlying several other privileges (spousal, doctor/patient, attorney/client, etc.), but in the main it has its roots in the First Amendment.  From the Wiki article above:

Quote

According to former Chief Justice of the United States Warren Burger, "The clergy privilege is rooted in the imperative need for confidence and trust. The... privilege recognizes the human need to disclose to a spiritual counselor, in total and absolute confidence, what are believed to be flawed acts or thoughts and to receive consolations and guidance in return."

A pastor has a duty to hold in confidence any information obtained during a counseling session. A pastor who violates this trust might be on the losing end of a suit for an invasion of privacy or defamation.

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...

A few years after Phillips was decided, People v. Smith distinguished the case on the grounds that the defendant had approached the minister as a "friend or adviser," not in his capacity as a professional or spiritual advisor. As with most privileges, a debate still exists about the circumstances under which the priest–penitent privilege applies. The capacity in which the clergyman is acting at the time of the communication is relevant in many jurisdictions.

Fourth, much of the debate about this privilege is ad hoc, that is, people get upset about a particular incident (often inflamed into outrage and anger by axe-grinding, agenda-driven zealots (MormonLeaks, for example)), and such folks then spout off in anger and alarm.  However, this is not a topic that should be addressed in anger, in the heat of the moment, in the midst of a ginned-up moral panic (again, see MormonLeaks for examples).  This is a complex and important topic, and one that has been evaluated and addressed extensively in our legal system.

In short, the priest-penitent privilege is not one we should abandon simply because the execrable MormonLeaks is trying to foment outrage and hatred against a minority religion for its entirely proper observance of this privilege.

Quote

I just saw this article:

"LDS Church leaders didn't report man who confessed to making child po*n, docs say" on the KUTV website (I can't post the link for some reason....but google that title and it will come up).

Here's a link to another article with the story:  https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2019/07/24/a-man-confessed-to-trading-illicit-images-of-kids-mormon-leaders-said-nothing/

Yes.  Ryan McKnight is trying to gin up hostility against the Church.  Again.  Quelle surprise!

Quote

I have to admit that I have mixed feelings about this.  I hate seeing anyone protected who is causing harm to a child and I do believe that a church leader should report them to the police (mainly if the abuse is still taking place and more children may be harmed).  

I invite you to resist the impulse that Ryan McKnight is hoping you will rely on (that impulse having as its primary attributes anger, outrage, and impatience).

One of the reasons the privilege exists in Judeo-Christian countries such as the U.S. is that penitents are encouraged to confess their sins to clergy.

One of the reasons the confessional exists (the primary reason, in fact) is to encourage repentance.  That usually involves the clergy encouraging the penitent to "make things right."

Without the privilege, people will stop confessing their misconduct to clergy, and hence will be deprived of a voice encouraging them to "make things right."

Without the privilege, the religious freedom we now enjoy will be substantially curtailed.  

Without the privilege, the government would eventually be able to turn the clergy into weapons of the state.  And if this privilege falls, then the others may become imperiled.  Do you really want to give the government the power to use the force of law to coerce your priest into divulging what you've said in confidence?  What about the government being able to coerce your doctor?  Your psychiatrist?  Your lawyer?  Your spouse?

Quote

I'd like to hear other's opinions on this too.  I believe the clergy / member confession is something that does need to be safe and protected. 

I agree.

Quote

But, at the cost of more children (or anyone) being harmed or the law continued to be broken? 

I think the "cost" would be much higher if we abolish the privilege. 

Think about how often clergy succeed in encouraging penitents to turn themselves in, to stop the abuse, etc.

Think about how many penitents will stop confessing their misconduct to clergy, and hence will be left without the encouraging voice of the clergy, and hence will be left to continue to engage in the misconduct.

Think about how much power the government has already to intrude into your life.  Do you really want to abolish one of the few checks left on that intrusive power?

Quote

Should the church leaders have done more in the situation described in the article?

Even Ryan McKnight (!), the original source of this story, admits that "{b}ased on the current law in Utah, and what is currently known about this case, the Mormon Church did not violate the law."

That didn't stop him from trying to use this story to foment anger and hatred against the Church, of course.  If you have any question about that, I invite you to read the "Comments" sections of the websites carrying this story.

A sampling:

Quote

"Screw the children! Circle the wagons and protect the church!"

Religion is truly evil.

---

Why do they never get it right? This isn't even a preacher and yet they still can't do the right thing and report it. They seem to be more worried about people knowing that there is a pedophile in their midst rather than being worried about having a pedophile in their midst. Just once, I wish they would display the morals they love tell us we don't have.

---

They probably thought he was on the fast track for moving up in the church.

---

The Mormons are no better than the Vatican when it comes to protecting their own at the expense of the victims.

---

I'm surprised they didn't make him their prophet, considering how Joe Smith Jr.'s loved young girls.

I submit that this is precisely the sort of visceral, hate-filled response that Ryan McKnight was hoping to get.

-Smac

Edited July 25, 2019 by smac97

[USU78]

No, unless they can get confirmation from a source not tainted by priest/penitent privilege.

[Amulek]

18 minutes ago, ALarson said:

24 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am betting it does include exceptions for immediate threats to children or if the person has said they are continuing to abuse children but that was not the case here.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it appears that the day care was kept open in his parent's home (where he lived) for another 2 months after his confession.  If that is true, there was an "immediate" threat to the children who were coming into his home for that day care.  That is where the abuse took place and he preyed on these children that the parent's were trusting his Mother to care for.

I don't think that's how the law construes an immediate threat. An immediate threat would be when the person who received the confession - be they clergy, attorney, therapist, etc. - believes that the individual is either currently harming others or that they intend to harm others in the near future. It isn't enough that you are going to be in an environment where you have the capacity to hurt others; there has to be a specific reason to believe that such harm is actually going to occur. 

 

[PacMan]

All ya'alls opinions are irrelevant.  What you think should be done doesn't matter.  If you don't like the law, then call your representative and change the law.

The church operates globally.  If there is a "canon law or church doctrine or practice," as Utah Code Ann. 62A-4a-403 states, then it needs to be practiced.  This is precisely why there is a helpline--to make sure that these practices of confidentiality are consistently followed within the bounds of the law.  Failure to do so renders it a non-practice, and one that is not protected.  While some may say "good" in one instance, that could be really, really bad in others where other issues in other jurisdictions are at issue.All ya'alls opinions are irrelevant.  What you think should be done doesn't matter.  If you don't like the law, then call your representative and change the law.

The church operates globally.  If there is a "canon law or church doctrine or practice," as Utah Code Ann. 62A-4a-403 states, then it needs to be practiced.  This is precisely why there is a helpline--to make sure that these practices of confidentiality are consistently followed within the bounds of the law.  Failure to do so renders it a non-practice, and one that is not protected.  While some may say "good" in one instance, that could be really, really bad in others where other issues in other jurisdictions are at issue.

[ALarson]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I submit that this is precisely the sort of visceral, hate-filled response that Ryan McKnight was hoping to get.

-Smac

Please keep McKnight out of this conversation or take that topic to another thread and don't derail this one.  

Please keep your comments to the questions in the OP if you want to comment on this thread.

Edited July 25, 2019 by ALarson

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I don't think that's how the law construes an immediate threat. An immediate threat would be when the person who received the confession - be they clergy, attorney, therapist, etc. - believes that the individual is either currently harming others or that they intend to harm others in the near future. It isn't enough that you are going to be in an environment where you have the capacity to hurt others; there has to be a specific reason to believe that such harm is actually going to occur. 

I am interested in knowing the answer to that. (what "construes an immediate threat")?

I'd imagine those parents who have learned that their children were still in the home where the abuse occurred, felt there was an "immediate threat" and believe they should have been warned or the day care should have been shut down immediately once church leaders were aware of the abuse.  I know the leaders do not have that power, but I hope this is what they advised the mother who continued running the day care to do here.

Edited July 25, 2019 by ALarson

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Please keep McKnight out of this conversation or take that topic to another thread and don't derail this one.  

Please keep your comments to the questions in the OP if you want to comment on this thread.

Will do.

Thanks,

-Smac

[webbles]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I am interested in knowing the answer to that. (what "construes an immediate threat")?

I'd imagine those parents who have learned that their children were still in the home where the abuse occurred, felt there was an "immediate threat" and believe they should have been warned or the day care should have been shut down immediately once church leaders were aware of the abuse.  I know the leaders do not have that power, but I hope this is what they advised the mother who continued running the day care to do here.

Considering that the last time he did it was years ago (he confessed to recording the children when he was at most 16, so it is at least 3 years ago), I don't see how it could be an "immediate threat".  He confessed to moving to adult p*rn once he was 16-17 so he basically aged out of viewing child p*rn.

[webbles]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I'd like to hear other's opinions on this too.  I believe the clergy / member confession is something that does need to be safe and protected.  But, at the cost of more children (or anyone) being harmed or the law continued to be broken?  Should the church leaders have done more in the situation described in the article?

 

I'm of the opinion that the clergy/member confession should be safe and protected.  I think it actually helps protect children and others from being harmed.

I also believe, based on the story, that the church leaders' reactions to the situation was excellent.  Upon confession to his Mission President, he was sent home.  We don't know exactly what happened in the disciplinary council, but the fact that he voluntarily went to the police is a sign to me that the disciplinary council was effective.

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, webbles said:

Considering that the last time he did it was years ago (he confessed to recording the children when he was at most 16, so it is at least 3 years ago), I don't see how it could be an "immediate threat".  

You can't be serious.  Would you trust your small child with him today or in a home where he lived today?  Just because it had taken place a couple years prior to his confessions does not mean he won't be a repeat offender (especially with the temptation of small children being brought into his home on a daily basis).  

And, I do hope he's receiving help and is getting some type of counseling or psychiatric help. 

Edited July 25, 2019 by ALarson

[JAHS]

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think the "cost" would be much higher if we abolish the privilege. 

Think about how often clergy succeed in encouraging penitents to turn themselves in, to stop the abuse, etc.

The church handbook states the following:
"With inspiration, a priesthood leader should act to protect others when a transgressor poses a physical or spiritual threat to them, such as by predatory practices, physical harm, sexual abuse, drug misuse, fraud, or apostasy"

If a perpetrator confesses but does not turn himself in to authorities the Bishop can still do something to remove the threat of further abuse of innocent victims. If he knew the Bishop was going to call the authorities he might not even confess the abuse and the Bishop would not know to do something. 

[smac97]

Just now, JAHS said:

Quote

I think the "cost" would be much higher if we abolish the privilege. 

Think about how often clergy succeed in encouraging penitents to turn themselves in, to stop the abuse, etc.

The church handbook states the following:
"With inspiration, a priesthood leader should act to protect others when a transgressor poses a physical or spiritual threat to them, such as by predatory practices, physical harm, sexual abuse, drug misuse, fraud, or apostasy"

If a perpetrator confesses but does not turn himself in to authorities the Bishop can still do something to remove the threat of further abuse of innocent victims. If he knew the Bishop was going to call the authorities he might not even confess the abuse and the Bishop would not know to do something. 

Yep.

Being a bishop is hard work.  I am glad the Church has done so much to give them training and resources to help those in need, and also to minimize missteps, errors in judgment, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

[webbles]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You can't be serious.  Would you trust your small child with him today or in a home where he lived today?  Just because it had taken place a couple years prior to his confessions does not mean he won't be a repeat offender (especially with the temptation of small children being brought into his home on a daily basis).  

And, I do hope he's receiving help and is getting some type of counseling or psychiatric help. 

Yes, I would trust him with a small child.  As far as I can tell, he only cared about child p*rn when he was a child.  Which makes a lot of sense to me.  If he had still been doing child p*rn as an adult, then I would have much more concern.

Also, it looks like the police also trusted him.  As far as I can tell, based off the documents, he wasn't placed in jail immediately upon confessing.  He confessed to the police in February 2018 and it doesn't look like anything actually happened till August.

[CV75]

40 minutes ago, smac97 said:

First, church leaders should obey the law of the land.

Second, I think the "law of the land" should include a priest-penitent privilege.  The laws governing this issue vary from state to state, but all states have at least some  form of the privilege.  See here:

Third, the rationale for the privilege is substantively similar to that underlying several other privileges (spousal, doctor/patient, attorney/client, etc.), but in the main it has its roots in the First Amendment.  From the Wiki article above:

Fourth, much of the debate about this privilege is ad hoc, that is, people get upset about a particular incident (often inflamed into outrage and anger by axe-grinding, agenda-driven zealots (MormonLeaks, for example)), and such folks then spout off in anger and alarm.  However, this is not a topic that should be addressed in anger, in the heat of the moment, in the midst of a ginned-up moral panic (again, see MormonLeaks for examples).  This is a complex and important topic, and one that has been evaluated and addressed extensively in our legal system.

In short, the priest-penitent privilege is not one we should abandon simply because the execrable MormonLeaks is trying to foment outrage and hatred against a minority religion for its entirely proper observance of this privilege.

Yes.  Ryan McKnight is trying to gin up hostility against the Church.  Again.  Quelle surprise!

I invite you to resist the impulse that Ryan McKnight is hoping you will rely on (that impulse having as its primary attributes anger, outrage, and impatience).

One of the reasons the privilege exists in Judeo-Christian countries such as the U.S. is that penitents are encouraged to confess their sins to clergy.

One of the reasons the confessional exists (the primary reason, in fact) is to encourage repentance.  That usually involves the clergy encouraging the penitent to "make things right."

Without the privilege, people will stop confessing their misconduct to clergy, and hence will be deprived of a voice encouraging them to "make things right."

Without the privilege, the religious freedom we now enjoy will be substantially curtailed.  

Without the privilege, the government would eventually be able to turn the clergy into weapons of the state.  And if this privilege falls, then the others may become imperiled.  Do you really want to give the government the power to use the force of law to coerce your priest into divulging what you've said in confidence?  What about the government being able to coerce your doctor?  Your psychiatrist?  Your lawyer?  Your spouse?

I agree.

I think the "cost" would be much higher if we abolish the privilege. 

Think about how often clergy succeed in encouraging penitents to turn themselves in, to stop the abuse, etc.

Think about how many penitents will stop confessing their misconduct to clergy, and hence will be left without the encouraging voice of the clergy, and hence will be left to continue to engage in the misconduct.

Think about how much power the government has already to intrude into your life.  Do you really want to abolish one of the few checks left on that intrusive power?

Even Ryan McKnight (!), the original source of this story, admits that "{b}ased on the current law in Utah, and what is currently known about this case, the Mormon Church did not violate the law."

That didn't stop him from trying to use this story to foment anger and hatred against the Church, of course.  If you have any question about that, I invite you to read the "Comments" sections of the websites carrying this story.

A sampling:

I submit that this is precisely the sort of visceral, hate-filled response that Ryan McKnight was hoping to get.

-Smac

Nice explanation, but the Handbook in my opinion carries a tone of reporting child abuse even though the law of any particular jurisdiction might grant church leaders the privilege not to.

Edited July 25, 2019 by CV75

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it appears that the day care was kept open in his parent's home (where he lived) for another 2 months after his confession.  If that is true, there was an "immediate" threat to the children who were coming into his home for that day care.  That is where the abuse took place and he preyed on these children that the parents were trusting his Mother to care for.

 

I believe the immediate threat exemption (if it applies in Utah) has to involve reasonable belief of intent. The perpetrator had not acted on this in several years. I am not defending the law but I do not think the Church should have made a report if I understand the law correctly because the judicial system would not have done anything unless the perpetrator confessed. Things did work out better the way it did go where he did confess in a legally admissible manner.

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I believe the immediate threat exemption (if it applies in Utah) has to involve reasonable belief of intent. The perpetrator had not acted on this in several years. 

Possibly....but it had been only a year at the time of his confession:

Quote

Alyk says he stopped looking at (and trading) child pornography when he was 17. When he was 18, he embarked on a two-year Mormon mission trip in the Dominican Republic and, perhaps full of guilt, confessed everything to the man overseeing the mission.

 

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am not defending the law but I do not think the Church should have made a report if I understand the law correctly because the judicial system would not have done anything unless the perpetrator confessed. 

But he had confessed (or do you mean to the police?).  Even so, the police would have opened an investigation when there are children involved and they would have most definitely shut down the daycare during the investigation (wouldn't they?).  At least children would not have been in the home where the abuse took place if it had been immediately shut down.

It would be interesting to hear from some of the parents, but I doubt that will happen.  

Edited July 25, 2019 by ALarson

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, webbles said:

Yes, I would trust him with a small child.  As far as I can tell, he only cared about child p*rn when he was a child. 

Wow.  Ok.  He was 17 years old when he was doing this to other small children.

You do know that's child abuse, don't you?

[The Nehor]

27 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You can't be serious.  Would you trust your small child with him today or in a home where he lived today?  Just because it had taken place a couple years prior to his confessions does not mean he won't be a repeat offender (especially with the temptation of small children being brought into his home on a daily basis).  

And, I do hope he's receiving help and is getting some type of counseling or psychiatric help. 

I would not trust him but that does not constitute an immediate or ongoing threat.

15 minutes ago, webbles said:

Yes, I would trust him with a small child.  As far as I can tell, he only cared about child p*rn when he was a child.  Which makes a lot of sense to me.  If he had still been doing child p*rn as an adult, then I would have much more concern.

Also, it looks like the police also trusted him.  As far as I can tell, based off the documents, he wasn't placed in jail immediately upon confessing.  He confessed to the police in February 2018 and it doesn't look like anything actually happened till August.

I think you are going too far unless we have more information. This is not him just looking at images of kids his own age. He was recording prepubescent children for sexual titillation.

I admit to morbid curiosity as to whether he was going to this site to look at 15 and 16 year olds or prepubescent children. If he was looking for teens he is predatory in collecting the images he did but they were relatively mild as this horror show goes (but still horrible) as he was not forcing sexual actions onto small children and was only collecting it to feed his porn fixation with potential partners around his own age. Still bad but In this case he can probably be rehabilitated relatively easily after he is punished.

If he was hunting for pictures of small children for his own titillation he has a long hard road ahead to get better, especially if that is his primary form of sexual attraction. In this case I would not trust him around children.

[Danzo]

those of you who want to destroy privileges(attorney, priest, doctor, spouse, etc), will probably cause more damage than good.  People won't seek the help they need if they know seeking help is an automatic report to the police.  There will end up being more abuse as a result. 

These privileges are here for a reason.