Hamba Tuhan Posted November 5, 2019 Posted November 5, 2019 (edited) 31 minutes ago, Tacenda said: I hope some on this thread now believe we need to not have appointed interviews with youth one on one, unless a youth asks to speak with the bishop alone on their own. I read your link. This man's offences were not committed during an ecclesiastical interview. There is, quite literally, no logical connection. When you've been asked to provide the logical connection in previous threads, you've never been able to do so. But by all means, please explain how not having confidential access to a bishopric member at church will stop a young person having someone else enter her/his bedroom at night to commit an offence. Edited November 5, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan 4
Tacenda Posted November 5, 2019 Posted November 5, 2019 (edited) 32 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: I read your link. This man's offences were not committed during an ecclesiastical interview. There is, quite literally, no logical connection. When you've been asked to provide the logical connection in previous threads, you've never been able to do so. But by all means, please explain how not having confidential access to a bishopric member at church will stop a young person having someone else enter her/his bedroom at night to commit an offence. You feel okay having a sexual predator interview a child alone? Do you not understand the harm that can be done during an interview? The questions asked that could abuse? Please reference where I've been asked to show a logical connection because I gave you one quickly here. Do you know of any organization in the world that allows one on one interviews where they ask about chastity? But with one on ones, there is no safeguards at how far the questioning goes and what can be put in minds of children. https://invisiblescubit.com/2019/10/28/another-lds-stake-takes-steps-towards-comprehensive-protection-for-their-children/?fbclid=IwAR3Anin4mSH_ZjwJwD5CiH20_Mr07MvO_l9IMQnhXl-zfpNud50Ii0VQCeo It looks like an LDS stake is listening, thank goodness! Edited November 5, 2019 by Tacenda
provoman Posted November 5, 2019 Posted November 5, 2019 56 minutes ago, Tacenda said: I hope some on this thread now believe we need to not have appointed interviews with youth one on one, unless a youth asks to speak with the bishop alone on their own. Could you elaborate? What is the connection of a peeping tom & child abuse?
Tacenda Posted November 5, 2019 Posted November 5, 2019 (edited) 2 minutes ago, provoman said: Could you elaborate? What is the connection of a peeping tom & child abuse? Most people, sorry if that's harsh, can see a problem right away. I'm sad you can't see it. Would you want this man interviewing your daughter? Edited November 5, 2019 by Tacenda
Hamba Tuhan Posted November 5, 2019 Posted November 5, 2019 13 minutes ago, Tacenda said: You feel okay having a sexual predator interview a child alone? No, that's a ridiculous question. It's also decidedly not what happened in the link you provided. Quote Do you not understand the harm that can be done during an interview? The harm that was mentioned in the link you provided had nothing -- zero! -- to do with an ecclesiastical interview. From personal experience, I am mindful of the good that can be done in such interviews. And I'm fully aware that there is solid research that supports the protective nature of young people having protected access to trusted clergy. Quote Do you know of any organization in the world that allows one on one interviews where they ask about chastity? You mean besides every single faith tradition that includes a rite of confession? That would be churches that represent more than half of all global Christians. 3
Tacenda Posted November 5, 2019 Posted November 5, 2019 https://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/judge-eases-sentence-on-former-lds-bishop-convicted-of-exploiting/article_e59cabdc-89c4-5a2d-ab0d-603865f91889.html?fbclid=IwAR2nr8VNrfrCGk5mE8S_YPOp4J1Fq5xAcHjzySWD9ARxQGv6Jz4qrtHCTLM This guy got a slap on the hand, sickening! And he did his crimes while serving as a bishop. Plus, the article states he cheated continually on his wife and addicted to porn. How in the world was this guy called as a bishop.
Tacenda Posted November 5, 2019 Posted November 5, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: No, that's a ridiculous question. It's also decidedly not what happened in the link you provided. The harm that was mentioned in the link you provided had nothing -- zero! -- to do with an ecclesiastical interview. From personal experience, I am mindful of the good that can be done in such interviews. And I'm fully aware that there is solid research that supports the protective nature of young people having protected access to trusted clergy. You mean besides every single faith tradition that includes a rite of confession? That would be churches that represent more than half of all global Christians. I was trying to show that men that look like they are worthy in every way, may not be and that we need to protect children from having one on one interviews. Plus, Catholics or other Christian denominations don't require youth worthiness interviews. Or CFR that they do. Edited November 5, 2019 by Tacenda
Hamba Tuhan Posted November 5, 2019 Posted November 5, 2019 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Tacenda said: I was trying to show that men that look like they are worthy in every way, may not be and that we need to protect children from having one on one interviews. If I do a Google search, do you think I can find examples of doctors, psychologists, counsellors and/or lawyers who have violated their positions of trust? How about fathers, brothers, uncles, cousins and grandfathers. The single greatest threat to a child is a family member. Are you prepared to ban all one-on-one interactions within the family to 'protect every child'. If not, you don't really want to save kids. Quote Plus, Catholics don't require youth interviews. Confession is essentially the same thing. And multiple churches have a rite of confession. Edited November 5, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan 4
Tacenda Posted November 5, 2019 Posted November 5, 2019 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: If I do a Google search, do you think I can find examples of doctors, psychologists, counsellors and/or lawyers who have violated their positions of trust? Seriously? Name even one of these professions that require a worthiness interview, one on one? 12 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: No, that's a ridiculous question. It's also decidedly not what happened in the link you provided. The harm that was mentioned in the link you provided had nothing -- zero! -- to do with an ecclesiastical interview. From personal experience, I am mindful of the good that can be done in such interviews. And I'm fully aware that there is solid research that supports the protective nature of young people having protected access to trusted clergy. You mean besides every single faith tradition that includes a rite of confession? That would be churches that represent more than half of all global Christians. You may not have seen my edit, on asking for a CFR on the bold. A confession is fine, but that isn't a worthiness interview. People that go to confession aren't required are they? Edited November 5, 2019 by Tacenda
Robert F. Smith Posted November 5, 2019 Posted November 5, 2019 5 hours ago, bluebell said: Since irresistible impulses do not exist, I don't think that would be a valid option. It does exist in law: Quote Several tests for the insanity defense have been devised with the one such test being the Irresistible Impulse Test, which argues that a defendant should not be held responsible for a crime because they could not control their actions, even though they knew the actions were wrong at the time. https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/the-irresistible-impulse-test.html .
Hamba Tuhan Posted November 5, 2019 Posted November 5, 2019 1 minute ago, Tacenda said: People that go to confession aren't required are they? https://www.goarch.org/-/preparation-for-holy-confession
Tacenda Posted November 5, 2019 Posted November 5, 2019 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: https://www.goarch.org/-/preparation-for-holy-confession This is a comparison to LDS worthiness interviews and Catholic confessions. https://bycommonconsent.com/2018/10/03/worthiness-vs-confession/ ETA: A big oops here, I was sure it wasn't required in Catholicism. I'm going to be taking some time reading this thoroughly. Foot in mouth, here. ETA again: @Hamba Tuhan, I retract my CFR. Edited November 5, 2019 by Tacenda
Popular Post Hamba Tuhan Posted November 5, 2019 Popular Post Posted November 5, 2019 (edited) 46 minutes ago, Tacenda said: This is a comparison to LDS worthiness interviews and Catholic confessions. https://bycommonconsent.com/2018/10/03/worthiness-vs-confession/ I don't care. We defend protected relationships between young people and medical professionals, counsellors, lawyers and others even though we know that some of them aren't going to be what we want them to be. We all protect the sanctity of one-on-one relationships between children and their parents even though we know that these are the single greatest source of abuse. I say again, if you really want to 'protect every child', you need to make sure that no parent has one-on-one access to his or her own children. Otherwise, you're just engaging in histrionics. Quote One fact that is clear across the board: perpetrators of child abuse and neglect are most often the child's own parents. According to NCANDS, a 2005 study showed that 79.4% of child abusers were the parents, and the next largest pool of abusers consisted of unmarried partners of the parents of child victims. A whopping 40% of child victims were abused by their mothers acting alone, and a disturbing 17.3% were abused by both parents (link). Actually, that last figure suggests we need to ban two-on-one access too. Protect every child! Ban parental access to children now! Who's with me? I just need to go find my cape ... Edited November 5, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan 9
pogi Posted November 5, 2019 Posted November 5, 2019 47 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Seriously? Name even one of these professions that require a worthiness interview, one on one? No, these professions mentioned don’t typically conduct worthiness interview, you are right. Yet, we still see abuse. So how can you say that “worthiness interviews” are the problem? Isn’t it really just being one on one that creates the risk? As Hamba has already effectively argued, are you willing to ban all one on one interactions with children? 2
provoman Posted November 5, 2019 Posted November 5, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Tacenda said: Most people, sorry if that's harsh, can see a problem right away. I'm sad you can't see it. Would you want this man interviewing your daughter? And I do not think most people equate adult on adult sexual behavior to mean the same adult(s) will commit abuse of minors. Edited November 5, 2019 by provoman 2
Tacenda Posted November 5, 2019 Posted November 5, 2019 41 minutes ago, provoman said: And I do not think most people equate adult on adult sexual behavior to mean the same adult(s) will commit abuse of minors. You didn't answer my question.
smac97 Posted November 5, 2019 Posted November 5, 2019 (edited) 14 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said: I don't care. We defend protected relationships between young people and medical professionals, counsellors, lawyers and others even though we know that some of them aren't going to be what we want them to be. We all protect the sanctity of one-on-one relationships between children and their parents even though we know that these are the single greatest source of abuse. Yep. Here is a comment I wrote some time ago on this topic (in relation to Sam Young): Quote We can reduce abuse, we can implement safeguards to reduce the risk of abuse, but such abuse will never be 'eliminate[d].'" By sheer numbers, a child is far, far more likely to be abused by a family member. See this Psychology Today article: Most of the perpetrators of child abuse (neglect, physical abuse, and sexual abuse) were family members. For example, 80.8% of (instance-based count, rather than person-based) perpetrators were parents, 5.9 percent were relatives other than parents, and 4.4 percent were unmarried partners of parents. In addition, the perpetrators included sibling, victim’s boyfriend or girlfriend, babysitter, other caretakers, and strangers. There is no indication that the pattern of offenders of sexual abuse, which accounted for 9.1% of the cases, differed from the general one. The data is also consistent with the practitioners’ observation about sex abuse perpetrators. As reported in American Psychological Association website, the majority of sexual offenders are family members or are otherwise known to the child. If Mr. Young is serious about "even one victim is too many" rhetoric, then why isn't he demanding that children be taken from their families? What isn't he demanding that children be taken out of school, lest they be at risk of being abused by a teacher or a coach? Why isn't Mr. Young demonizing family members and teachers/coaches the same way he has been demonizing LDS bishops? Why is he ignoring the elephant in the room? The answer, I think, may be in the next paragraph of the above article: However, this reality has not set in for some people because only sex crimes perpetrated by strangers or persons with special status (e.g., coach, teacher) tend to receive the news media’ attention. High (low) level publicity of an event in the media is often mistaken as high (low) frequency of the event. If the news media could pay more attention to family violence and to physically, sexually and/or emotionally abused child victims at home, they would make a greater contribution in keeping children safe and healthy. Mr. Young's crusade is, I think, based less on reasoned analysis, and more on emotion and vitriol. It is reactionary, not introspective or reasoned. It's an appeal to emotion, to mass panic and hysteria, and perhaps even to outright animosity and prejudice against the LDS Church. It is not a rational and proportionate approach to addressing the abuse of children (as evidenced by Sam Young leapfrogging over the vast majority of abuse being committed by family members, which he doesn't address at all). I see this same pattern over and over again. Quote I say again, if you really want to 'protect every child', you need to make sure that no parent has one-on-one access to his or her own children. Otherwise, you're just engaging in histrionics. Actually, that last figure suggests we need to ban two-on-one access too. Protect every child! Ban parental access to children now! Again, yep. From a letter I wrote to a family member on this topic (again, pertaining to Sam Young, since the family member was a fan of his at the time): Quote You ask a fair question: "How do we prevent the predator in priestly guise from using his position and the practice of sexually explicit interviews to groom & abuse young victims?" The remedy proposed by Mr. Young is to totally eliminate all interviews by all bishops. That seems a bit like curing an injured arm by amputating it. Sure, it will resolve the issue (sort of - a child abuser can circumvent most safeguards), but the cure may, for some, end up being worse than the injury. For example, has Mr. Young ever considered how many times bishop interviews have helped discover and stop abuse? See, for example, this story: 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. "The alleged victim revealed the alleged abuse to her bishop." That happens. A lot. All the time, in fact. But Mr. Young is demanding that this resource be taken away. Has he considered the ramifications of his demands being fulfilled? Has he considered how many times abuse of a child will continue unabated because he succeeded in vilifying bishops, in characterizing them and presumptively perverted and untrustworthy? What about a young man struggling with an addiction to pornography? What if he is too embarrassed to tell his parents? What if he doesn't have a father around to give him advice? What if he wants to talk to a trustworthy adult about this? Not gratuitously, but about the problem and how he can cope with it and overcome it? If he won't go to his parents, and - if Mr. Young gets his way - he can't go to his bishop, then what does he do? Talk to a teacher? What if he doesn't trust his teachers? What if his teacher is not equipped to address such things? Or consider a young woman who has violated the Law of Chastity. What if she is too embarrassed to tell her parents? What if she had unprotected sex and might be pregnant? What if her partner has been very promiscuous and might have given her an STI? What if her partner is an adult and she is underage? What if she wants to tell her bishop and seek guidance as to what to do? Again, not a gratuitous description, but enough details so that the bishop can know what has happened and can offer appropriate assistance? If Mr. Young gets his way, bishops cannot be trusted and cannot help in this situation. Or consider a young woman who was sexually assaulted. What if her abuser is a family member, or a neighbor, such that she is scared to tell her parents (or, perhaps worse of all, what if the abuser is her parent)? What if she wants to talk to her bishop about this, but not her parents or the police? This happens all the time. As I see it three of the biggest impediments to them getting help are a feeling of helplessness, a lack of control over their lives, and profound confusion and despair at the abuse, and misplaced feelings of shame and guilt. Going to the police can come across as exacerbating these things. If the police get involved, then the abuser may end up getting arrested (which can be distressing when it's a family member, even to the victim). If the police get involved, then the "secret" is out, which may enhance the confusion / despair / shame / guilt (at least that's the fear the victim may have). If the police get involved, then the police (and/or DCFS) intrude into the home, ask very sensitive questions, and do so by the coercive power of government. The victim's sense of helplessness or lack of control might actually get worse (again, that's the fear the victim may have at the prospect of contacting the police). And so it goes. But here's the thing: The police and DCFS still need to be involved. That is the decision our society has made, and I think it's a necessary one. So my point is that sometimes the victim may not want to call the police (because of the above concerns), which is why a disclosure to the bishop becomes so valuable. Bishops, after all, are generally good and decent men, and they have an obligation to monitor the welfare of their flock, and in most jurisdictions they have a legal obligation to report most allegations of abuse. The Church, recognizing this, has spent considerable time and effort to create a helpline for bishops that is staffed by attorneys who help navigate the legal intricacies that can and do arise in such situations. ..."Even one victim is too many" is not a message that I can get behind. Not because I disagree with it (I fully embrace the sentiment), but because it is so manifestly impractical. As long as we live in a sinful world, we will have "victims." Mr. Young's demand would potentially save a victim over here, but would very likely perpetuate victimization of many others over there. Moreover, by this logic, we need to stop driving cars. "One [accident] victim is too many," after all. We also need to stop going to hospitals. "One [hospital infection] victim is too many." We also can't go to doctors anymore. "One [medical malpractice] victim is too many." And the schools. Gotta shut them down, too. "One [bullying] victim is too many." And alcohol. That's out. "One [intoxicated violence] victim is too many." And so on. Ad infinitum. Life is a series of calculated risk calculations. {} I think that bishops are a tremendous resource for helping youth. Taking that resource away would, in my view, be very harmful to a lot of youth who would have otherwise been able to benefit from the goodness and wisdom and resources and training and experience of bishops. Thanks, -Smac Edited November 5, 2019 by smac97 2
smac97 Posted November 5, 2019 Posted November 5, 2019 (edited) 14 hours ago, Tacenda said: Most people, sorry if that's harsh, can see a problem right away. I'm sad you can't see it. Would you want this man interviewing your daughter? Would you want any of these women teaching your sons? Abbie Jane Swogger; Abigail Holloway; Adrienne Laflamme; Adrienne Laflamme; Alexandria Vera; Alison Mosbeck; Alison Peck; Allenna Ward; Amanda Athey; Amber Jennings; Amber Marshall; Amira Sa’Di; Amy Beck; Amy Bramhall; Amy Elder; Amy Elder; Amy Lilley; Amy McElhenny; Amy N. Miller; Amy Northcutt; Amy Yarbrough; Andrea Fox; Andrea Martinez; Andrea Martinez; Angela Christine Coffey; Angela Comer; Angela Palmer; Angela Stellwag; Anna Bettencourt; Anne Knopf; April Watson; Ashley Hall; Ashley Flores; Autumn Leathers; Barbara Anderson; Becci Hill; Beth Ann Chester; Beth Raymond; Beth Shepherd; Bethany Sherrill; Brandy Lynn Gonzales; Brenda Baillargeon; Brenda Osborne; Bridgett Szychulski; Brittni Colleps; Cameo Patch; Carmen Brown; Carol Flannigan; Carrie McCandless; Carrie O’Conner; Cathy Heminghaus; Celeste Emerick; Chandra Franks; Christel C. Gravlin; Christie Elliot; Christina Gallagher; Christina Oliver; Christine Duda; Christine Scarlett; Christine Jouini; Christine McCallum; Christine Spaich; Christy Anne Brown; Christy Martin; Claire Richards; Courtney Bowles; Courtney Jarrell; Cris Morris; Crissy Hisey; Crystal Wells; Cynthia Horvath; Danielle Jones; Danielle Watkins; Darcie Esson; Dawn Welter; Deanna Bobo; Deborah Reeder; Debra LaFave; Denise Keesee; Diana Canter; Donna Washburne; Dorothy Dixon; Elisa Martinelli; Elisha Kingsley; Elizabeth Livesay; Elizabeth Miklosovic; Elizabeth Munn; Elizabeth Stow; Ellen Garfield; Ellen Niemiec; Emily Elizabeth Housley; Emily Morris; Erica Baker; Erica Rutters; Erica Umosella; Erin McLean; Erin Queen; Ethel Anderson; Franca and Antonia Munoz-Juvera; Gail E. Gagne; Gay Lyn Turley; Georgianne Harrell; Gina Marie Watring; Gwen Cardozo; Haven Kirkpatrick; Heather Lea Burroughs; Heather Ingram; Heather Kennedy; Heather Thorsby; Heather Lynne Zeo; Hope Jacoby; Hope Johns; Jacquelyn Faith Garrison; Jamie Armstrong; Jamie Waite; Janelle Batkins; Janelle Bird; Janet Hughes; Janet Parker; Jaymee Wallace; Jennifer Cisco; Jennifer Dempsey; Jennifer Dorland; Jennifer Espinosa; Jennifer Mally; Jennifer Rice; Jennifer Tarkenton; Jennifer Whiting; Jessica Bailey Wishnask; Joan Marie Sladky; Jodi Church; Julia Lund; Julie A. Denno; Julie Pritchett; Kalyn Thompson; Kalyn Darby Thompson; Kandace Christopher; Kanesa Hopkins; Karen Patton; Karen Robbins; Kasey Johnes; Katherine J. Harder; Katherine Hicks; Katherine Tew; Kathy White; Katie Cross; Katryna Martin; Kellie Ann Cormican; Christina Oliver; Kelly Ann Garcia; Kelly Dalecki; Kelsey Peterson; Kenzi Friday; Kesha D. Manuel; Kimberly Lynch; Kinsley Wentzky; Kirsten Kinley; Kristen Margrif; Kristi Oakes; Kristy Sanchez-Trujillo; Kristyn Breeds; Lakina Stutts; Laura Lynn Findlay; Laura Pace; Lauren Cosgrove; Lauren Harrington-Cooper; Leslie Baird; Linda Hardan; Linda Nef; Linda Pithyou; Lindsay Massaro; Lisa Lavoie; Lisa Robyn Marinelli; Lynn Saunders; Marcie L. Rousseau; Marcy R. Fisher; Margaret De Barraicua; Maria Guzman Hernandez; Maria Saco; Mariella Brenlla; Marla Gurecki-Haskins; Mary Jo Spack; Mary Kay Letourneau; Megan Mahoney; Megan Sainsbury; Megan Snipes; Melinda Deluca; Melinda Dennehy; Melissa Andreini; Melissa Bare; Melissa Chase; Melissa Deel; Melissa Diana Koeh; Melissa Lavender; Melissa Dawn McCord; Melissa Moss; Melissa Snow; Melissa Weber; Meredith Hollen; Meredith Kane; Michelle Farley; Michelle Kush; Michelle Morano; Michelle VanMeter; Michelle Zulkowsky; Natalie Fraxedas; Natasha Sizow; Nicole Barnhart; Nicole Dufault; Nicole Kurowski; Nicole Long; Nicole Pomerleau; Pamela Balogh; Pamela Diehl-Moore; Pamela Smart; Pamela Rogers Turner; Rachel Burkhart; Rachel Holt; Rachelle Heenan; Rachelle Vantucci; Rebecca Boicelli; Rebecca Becker and Maria Zurita; Rebecca Bogard; Rebecca Ann Bramlett; Rebecca Lee Kelley; Rebecca Noonan; Rebekah Todd; Rebecca Robertson-Shaffer; Regina McKay; Rhianna Ellis; Rita Brum; Robin Gialanella; Robin Winkis; Rosanna Encinas Brown; Samantha Solomon; Sandra Binkley; Sandra Borrego; Sandra “Beth” Geisel; Sarah Bridges; Sarah Joel; Sarah Raymo; Sarah L. Tolzien; Shannon Best; Shannon Herring; Shannon Young; Sharon Rutherford; Shebana Rajput; Shelley Allen; Sheila Vazquez; Sheral Smith; Sherry Brians; Sheryl A. Namahine; Stacy Hopkins; Stephanie Adams; Stephanie Burleson; Stephanie Giambelluca; Stephanie Diane Harris; Stephanie Ragusa; Stephanie Seabury; Stephanie Ann Stein; Stephanie Jo Walters; Summer Hansen; Susan Clickner; Tabitha Adams; Tamara Ryman; Tara Driscoll; Tawni Wimberley; Teresa Engelbach; Tina Mason; Toni Allexy; Toni Woods; Traci Tapp; Valynne Bowers; Wendie Schweikert; and Yvette Starzyk. This is a list of female school teachers who have been accused and/or convicted of sexually assaulting minor students (from, I believe, this list, published in 2014). Where are the marches and protests characterizing all female teachers of as sexual perverts, as threats to children, as sexually and emotionally abusing children and causing them "pain", as "shaming" youth to death and driving them to suicide? 'Cuz that's what some folks have been doing vis-à-vis bishops. So is your question a fair and reasonable one? Thanks, -Smac Edited November 5, 2019 by smac97 4
smac97 Posted November 5, 2019 Posted November 5, 2019 18 hours ago, pogi said: Quote I agree. But this plea was in court, not in a bishop's office. There are plenty of reasons why a person could legitimately please "not guilty" to misconduct in a civil/criminal proceeding. That is a fairly different discussion from the religious aspect (in which Bro. Murdock admits and accepts responsibility for misconduct, but to a bishop and/or stake president). Could you explain this to me because I am generally curious and may not understand law as well as I should? If a person admits guilt to a bishop, under what circumstances could he legitimately plead "not guilty" in court? Isn't that lying? Doesn't restitution and reconciliation require accountability for your behavior both legally and ecclesiastically? Doesn't restitution, in part, require the victim to feel like justice has been served for the charges filed against him? For him to fight the charges (if he knows he is guilty) and get off Scot-free potentially, how would accountability and restitution/reconciliation be served? By way of illustration: Quote DISPATCHES FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THE EDUCATION APOCALYPSE AND HAM SANDWICH NATION: Lori Loughlin has ‘hit rock bottom’ and is ‘terrified’ she may be about to spend a maximum of 45 years behind bars behind bars after being slapped with a new bribery charge in the college admissions scandal. In a press release, the U.S. Department of Justice said that Loughlin, 55, Giannulli, 56, and nine other defendants ‘conspired to commit federal program bribery by bribing employees of the University of Southern California (USC) to facilitate their children’s admission’. In exchange for the alleged bribes, USC coaches and athletics officials supposedly enrolled the children as recruited athletes, regardless of their athletic abilities. Loughlin, her husband, and the nine other defendants, have now each been charged with one count of conspiracy to commit federal programs bribery. Previously, Loughlin and Giannulli were facing charges of money laundering conspiracy, conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and honest services mail and wire fraud. They pleaded not guilty the charges in April and now face a maximum of 45 years behind bars if convicted. As Bill McGurn writes in response at the Wall Street Journal, “This is nuts:” While Ms. Huffman pleaded guilty, apologized profusely and served out her sentence (14 days, but released after 12 because it was a weekend) at the Federal Correctional Institution in Dublin, Calif., Ms. Loughlin and Mr. Giannulli are insisting, perhaps unwisely, on taking their case to a jury. Meanwhile, in the same way the sans-culottes jeered Marie Antoinette on her way to the guillotine, today’s equivalent— Twitter mobs and gossip sheets—are thirsting to see this icon of Tinseltown wealth and privilege cut down to size by a stint in federal prison. Now, it may well be standard procedure for prosecutors to add new charges when their targets refuse to plead. But does anyone else think it a stretch to argue that two California residents bribing their children’s way into a private California university are committing a crime against the federal government? Or that the statutes she’s accused of violating, such as bribery or money laundering in connection with a program that receives federal funding, were really intended to go after people such as Ms. Loughlin? All of which has yours truly hoping Ms. Loughlin and her husband prevail. Not because they are innocent. But because the case reeks of overreach, as well as my unease with the idea that the FBI and Justice are the vehicles to deliver fairness in college admissions. As McGurn concludes, “Ms. Loughlin, remember, is a nonviolent first-offender. By all means, stick her with a fat fine and community service. But it’s just overkill for federal prosecutors to be devoting so much of their time and resources to make sure this woman goes to prison.” Related: Ham Sandwich Nation: Due Process When Everything Is A Crime. Could you see how Lori Loughlin might have a legitimate basis for pleading "not guilty" in this context? Thanks, -Smac
pogi Posted November 5, 2019 Posted November 5, 2019 12 minutes ago, smac97 said: By way of illustration: Could you see how Lori Loughlin might have a legitimate basis for pleading "not guilty" in this context? Thanks, -Smac Ironically, it was her "not guilty" plea that created the unfavorable context. If she would have fessed up and took accountability and expressed remorse, she would have had the same slap on the wrist that Ms. Huffman had. I don't think she had any justification for pleading "not guilty" to the original charges, but I can see what you are saying about the new charges.
provoman Posted November 5, 2019 Posted November 5, 2019 14 hours ago, Tacenda said: You didn't answer my question. And you did not elaborate on "we need to not have appointed interviews with youth one on one,...". I am not pressing the issue and I appreciate your input when you choose to respond. 1
smac97 Posted November 5, 2019 Posted November 5, 2019 20 minutes ago, pogi said: Ironically, it was her "not guilty" plea that created the unfavorable context. If she would have fessed up and took accountability and expressed remorse, she would have had the same slap on the wrist that Ms. Huffman had. I don't think she had any justification for pleading "not guilty" to the original charges, but I can see what you are saying about the new charges. The issue is not really about Ms. Loughlin, and more about the criminal justice system. Consider the reference to a "ham sandwich" above, and explained here: Quote That particular expression, indict a ham sandwich, was coined in 1985 by Sol Wachtler, the later disgraced chief judge of New York State. Wachtler was in favor of scrapping the grand-jury system. District attorneys had so much power, Wachtler argued, that “by and large” they could get grand juries to “indict a ham sandwich.” His remark was made famous just two years later by Tom Wolfe, whose Bonfire of the Vanities quoted Wachtler in discussing the poor chances of its guilty protagonist, Sherman McCoy. See also here: Quote Glenn Reynolds has a terrific, and very short, paper on SSRN on Ham Sandwich Nation: Due Process When Everything is a Crime, which I highly recommend. (Conor Friedersdorf blogs about it here.) Here is the key passage that summarizes the problem: Overcriminalization has thus left us in a peculiar place: Though people suspected of a crime have extensive due process rights in dealing with the police, and people charged with a crime have even more extensive due process rights in court, the actual decision whether or not to charge a person with a crime is almost completely unconstrained. Yet, because of overcharging and plea bargains, that decision is probably the single most important event in the chain of criminal procedure. "Overcharging and plea bargains" have, in many important respects, superseded the presumption of innocence and other due process safeguards that should be in place. Thanks, -Smac 1
Kenngo1969 Posted November 5, 2019 Posted November 5, 2019 19 hours ago, Tacenda said: You feel okay having a sexual predator interview a child alone? ... No. Thanks for asking. That said, for the record, you're begging the question, here, Tacenda. 1
Tacenda Posted November 5, 2019 Posted November 5, 2019 2 hours ago, provoman said: And you did not elaborate on "we need to not have appointed interviews with youth one on one,...". I am not pressing the issue and I appreciate your input when you choose to respond. We need to not have appointed interviews.... means we shouldn't have worthiness interviews where it's a one on one. It could include a YM's or YW's leader or a parent. But I understand the parent could be a perpetrator as well. So another adult leader, I guess. To go along with the rest of the 2 deep program in every other scenario in the church. The only exception could be if an older youth would want to confess alone. I don't see any 8 year olds that would need to, honestly. Now if you're ready to answer my question since I answered yours, hopefully...I just wonder if you would want the man who took pics on his phone of the girl undressing in the store dressing room, interviewing your daughter if you have one. It's a simple yes or no. This man was a bishop at one time. If he has these tendencies leaders definitely missed seeing it, and really we are kind of taught that they have some inspiration on these matters. That's why if somehow that didn't transpire, we need to take precautions. There are all sorts of questions that would be inappropriate, and if you've read any of Sam Young's website letters from instances, than you would see how these interviews have devasted some lives. And who knows, some could be fake, but not all are.
rockpond Posted November 5, 2019 Posted November 5, 2019 2 minutes ago, Tacenda said: We need to not have appointed interviews.... means we shouldn't have worthiness interviews where it's a one on one. It could include a YM's or YW's leader or a parent. But I understand the parent could be a perpetrator as well. So another adult leader, I guess. To go along with the rest of the 2 deep program in every other scenario in the church. The only exception could be if an older youth would want to confess alone. I don't see any 8 year olds that would need to, honestly. Now if you're ready to answer my question since I answered yours, hopefully...I just wonder if you would want the man who took pics on his phone of the girl undressing in the store dressing room, interviewing your daughter if you have one. It's a simple yes or no. This man was a bishop at one time. If he has these tendencies leaders definitely missed seeing it, and really we are kind of taught that they have some inspiration on these matters. That's why if somehow that didn't transpire, we need to take precautions. There are all sorts of questions that would be inappropriate, and if you've read any of Sam Young's website letters from instances, than you would see how these interviews have devasted some lives. And who knows, some could be fake, but not all are. Sam Young has reported that at least one stake has eliminated one on one interviews with children and youth. For reference: I believe it is posted on his blog and facebook. My Bishop has pretty much eliminated one on one interviews for primary kids under 12 (always inviting a parent) but not for youth.
Recommended Posts