PA Stake President Charged with Felony Under Mandatory Reporting Law

[helix]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

This doesn’t make sense to me since the victim in this case is no longer a child

It's retroactive. If the person was a child at the time of the abuse, then the law applies. And the statute of limitations goes back decades.

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, helix said:

It's retroactive. If the person was a child at the time of the abuse, then the law applies. And the statute of limitations goes back decades.

I could see that as getting so complicated with adult victims who want therapy but do not want to deal with law enforcement immediately, if at all, especially out of concern it will become public knowledge. 
 

Mandatory reporting makes sense to me to prevent possible harm to a child or future child victims.  It does not make sense to take away the freedom of an adult victim to determine what they need to do to heal. 

[pogi]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

The form and scope of the privilege varies a lot by jurisdiction, by statutory language, and other factors.

The Attorney-Client Privilege is perhaps the broadest and most potent one.  For example, in Utah, it applies to any information an attorney obtains which "arises from the representation of a client."  So if I as an attorney witness my neighbor committing abuse, I am obligated to report it.  But if I come by the information while I am acting as an attorney representing a client, I cannot (or, rather, I am not obligated to).  Rule 1.6 of the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct gives the attorney discretion to report or not ("A lawyer may reveal information...").

The same statute exempts clergy in Utah where the clergy A) receives a confession, B) "while functioning in the ministerial capacity," C) "the perpetrator made the confession directly to the member of the clergy," and D) "the member of the clergy is, under canon law or church doctrine or practice, bound to maintain the confidentiality of the confession."  If the clergy receives the information about abuse from any other source, "{he} is required to report the information even if the member of the clergy also received information about the abuse or neglect from the confession of the perpetrator."

So, it differs by state for attorneys, but it is not a privilege extended to health care professionals in any state.  It is in fact mandated to report.  That shows that some people do have a problem with it, contrary to your claim:

Quote

Nobody seems to have a problem with the Attorney-Client and Doctor-Patient privileges, which result in "silence" (that is, immunity from punitive compulsion to speak by the State).  I wonder why that is.

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

As you can see, this is a far narrower privilege than the one granted to attorneys.  And yet it gets all sorts of guff.

I think part of the reason is that church/religion has higher opportunity, risk and potential for abuse where the clergy themselves are more likely to be perpetrators than attorneys.  After everything that has been revealed in the Catholic church with how internal reports of abuse have been handled, is it any wonder that church and religion receive more "guff"?   I think it is rightly deserved.   

Edited February 1, 2024 by pogi

[rpn]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

This doesn’t make sense to me since the victim in this case is no longer a child.

It's the principal of the thing and a desire to not let people off the hook because they think they know the age of the survivor, would be my guess.

I'd personally be quite angry at as an adult at anyone  telling my business (and especially my childhood drama)  to the people who make up government.  (But I'd be okay with them telling my therapist the same info), I think,  so long as they otherwise butted out.)

[Teancum]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Nobody seems to have a problem with the Attorney-Client and Doctor-Patient privileges, which result in "silence" (that is, immunity from punitive compulsion to speak by the State).  I wonder why that is.

In the state i live in doctors and mental health professionals (among many others) are mandatory reporters of abuse.  Attorneys are not. Nor are clergy.  My bet is other states are similar and doctors at least do not have patient doctor privileges.

https://www.nysmandatedreporter.org/MandatedReporters.aspx

So apparently someone has an problem with doctors and mental health professionals from using patient privilege for non reporting.

Edited February 1, 2024 by Teancum

[rpn]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

  I think the same principle would apply to stake presidents, bishopric members, high council members, stake clerks, etc.

That sure isn't  the way catholic priests live it ---- you cannot tell your own confessional priest what you learn from others in the confessional.    And under our own rules, the bishop is supposed to get permission from the member to share confessional material  (and IME refusal to give such permission is usually is treated like thoroughly unrepentant)  with anyone else.    And is NOT allowed to share confessional info (which is different than what they may have learned outside of the confessional) with the RS/EQP or councilors or others.   

[Danzo]

36 minutes ago, pogi said:

I think part of the reason is that church/religion has higher opportunity, risk and potential for abuse where the clergy themselves are more likely to be perpetrators than attorneys. 

I don't think you know very many attorneys

[pogi]

3 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I don't think you know very many attorneys

Lol!

I'm not saying they are better people.

[Teancum]

7 hours ago, webbles said:

I think they believe that keeping the confessional sacramental does prevent ongoing and future criminal behavior.

I think they are wrong, particularly with pedophiles.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, helix said:

And you aren't alone in thinking this. Many academic researchers are coming to the same conclusion. From researcher Mical Raz, MD, PhD who has delved deep into this issue “Reporting has been our one response to concerns about child abuse,” said Dr. Mical Raz, a physician and professor of history at the University of Rochester who has studied the impact of mandatory child abuse reporting. “Now we have quite a bit of data that shows that more reporting doesn’t result in better identification of children at risk and is not associated with better outcomes for children, and in some cases may cause harm to families and communities."

Also: "Of those abused children who are identified by mandatory reports? Does the intervention make their situations better? Another study asked this question.  Of abuse survivors, only 18% said reporting made things better, while 62% said it made things worse. That includes 3% who said it made things much better and 50% who said it made things much worse."

This is a horrific but true point. Often reports exacerbate situations without helping.

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

Correct me if I am wrong but aren't there exceptions to these privileges in the case of child abuse?  I know that is the case with doctors and health care providers who are required in all states to report any suspected child abuse. 

Here is the list below of mandatory reporters for child abuse. @smac97as you can see the list is quite lengthy.

Those designated professionals include:

• Physician
• Registered Physician Assistant
• Surgeon
• Medical Examiner
• Coroner
• Dentist
• Dental Hygienist
• Osteopath
• Optometrist
• Chiropractor
• Podiatrist
• Resident
• Intern
• Psychologist
• Registered Nurse
• Social Worker
• Emergency Medical Technician
• Licensed Creative Arts Therapist
• Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist
• Licensed Mental Health Counselor
• Licensed Psychoanalyst
• Licensed Behavior Analysts
• Certified Behavior Analyst Assistants
• Hospital Personnel engaged in the admission, examination, care, or treatment of persons
• A Christian Science practitioner

• School Official, which includes but is not limited to:
  • School Teacher
  • School Guidance Counselor
  • School Psychologist
  • School Social Worker
  • School Nurse
  • School Administrator
  • or other school personnel required to hold a teaching or administrative license or certificate
• Social Services Worker
• Director of a children's overnight camp, summer day camp, or traveling summer day camp
• Day Care Center Worker
• School-age Child Care Worker; provider of family or group family day care
• Employee or volunteer in a residential care facility
• Child Care or Foster Care Worker
• Mental Health Professional
• Substance Abuse Counselor
• Alcoholism Counselor
• All persons credentialed by the NYS Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services
• Peace Officer
• Police Officer
• District Attorney
• Assistant District Attorney
• Investigator employed in the Office of a District Attorney
• Any other law enforcement official

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I think they are wrong, particularly with pedophiles.

It is unfortunate the very nature of confidential confession prevents studying its effectiveness for encouraging perpetrators to confess to LEOs or to stop.

Given the fear expressed by many who are attracted to children that telling a therapist about the attraction the therapist will report them even if no evidence of a crime (I come across comments about this in some of my research for stats on abuse and reporting), I find it hard to believe the laws do not have a chilling effect on potential abusers getting help before there are victims. There is possibly good reason for this fear as one study is being shared on Quora that over 10% of therapists will report someone without evidence of a crime.  

More likely to find stats on therapists since they could report numbers without details, but not sure how reliable they would be…how could you measure those who don’t open up, who might have without that fear. 

Edited February 1, 2024 by Calm

[helix]

8 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Here is the list below of mandatory reporters for child abuse

That's just one state.

In a state like Oklahoma, it's every adult. There is no exception. Every citizen, illegal immigrant, health care worker, priest, lawyer, and homeless person has to report what the government tells them to report.

 

[Stargazer]

On 1/31/2024 at 8:58 PM, helix said:

Silence is not inherently evil. Silence is not a crime. Silence is a civil right. A person has a right to silence in this county.

Look up "misprision of felony."

[webbles]

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2024/2/1/24057665/church-calls-charge-against-latter-day-saint-stake-president-misguided seems to have a bit more information about it.

Gooden pleaded guilty to abusing two relatives (I don't think they are his relatives, just related to each other) between 1997 and 2000 in Virginia.  In the course of that investigation, the investigators learned about abuse done in Pennsylvania and notified the Pennsylvania police in 2022.  He is accused of abusing two relatives (also probably not his relatives) in 2000 in a Pennsylvania state park.  At some point, both Gooden and one of the victims (who was 12 at the time of the assault in 2000) told Hintze (the stake president).  Hintze has been stake president since 2018.

The charging documents for Hintze will be available on Friday.  He is charged with a single count of failure to report.

[JAHS]

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

14 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

And let's face it. We are better off as a society for many of the conditions in which we compel speech. ... It is good that we (as a society) require that child abuse be reported to the proper authorities.

I question that.  There seem to be plenty of adverse consequences arising from mandatory reporting laws, perhaps enough to make them create more problems than they solve.

If clergy are require to report everything even if in a confession, would the one perpetrating the abuse just not even consider confessing it for fear of certain arrest and the abuse would continue?
Or if confessed and not reported, could the Bishop perhaps help the person repent and stop the abuse and also provide the abused and family the help they need?  

Edited February 2, 2024 by JAHS

[helix]

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Look up "misprision of felony."

That's not applicable here because that requires active concealment of covering up a felony, and not just failure to report a felony. To establish misprision of felony, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt: “(1) that the principal . . .committed and completed the felony alleged; (2) that the defendant had full knowledge of that fact; (3) that he failed to notify the authorities; and (4) that he took affirmative steps to conceal the crime of the principal.”

That's not at issue. The stake president didn't actively try to conceal.

From https://casetext.com/case/us-v-johnson-64, Judge Roney writes:

Quote

The factual basis of defendant's plea does not demonstrate the existence of "concealment," an essential element of the offense of misprision. The record of defendant's plea fails to reveal that he took "affirmative steps to conceal the crime of the principals."....The mere failure to report a felony is not sufficient to constitute a violation of [misprision of felony]

I also enjoyed this from here:

Quote

...the concept is of very limited importance in American criminal law. This is because it is generally considered excessively harsh to put people in prison for failing to report a crime.

A religious leader not reporting a felony heard in confession isn't concealing a felony and isn't misprision of felony.

 

Edited February 2, 2024 by helix

[Calm]

3 hours ago, webbles said:

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2024/2/1/24057665/church-calls-charge-against-latter-day-saint-stake-president-misguided seems to have a bit more information about it.

Gooden pleaded guilty to abusing two relatives (I don't think they are his relatives, just related to each other) between 1997 and 2000 in Virginia.  In the course of that investigation, the investigators learned about abuse done in Pennsylvania and notified the Pennsylvania police in 2022.  He is accused of abusing two relatives (also probably not his relatives) in 2000 in a Pennsylvania state park.  At some point, both Gooden and one of the victims (who was 12 at the time of the assault in 2000) told Hintze (the stake president).  Hintze has been stake president since 2018.

The charging documents for Hintze will be available on Friday.  He is charged with a single count of failure to report.

Multiple victims over an extended time makes a very good reason for telling police imo, much more likely others in the future could be harmed.

Edited February 2, 2024 by Calm

[Stargazer]

11 hours ago, helix said:

That's not applicable here because that requires active concealment of covering up a felony, and not just failure to report a felony. To establish misprision of felony, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt: “(1) that the principal . . .committed and completed the felony alleged; (2) that the defendant had full knowledge of that fact; (3) that he failed to notify the authorities; and (4) that he took affirmative steps to conceal the crime of the principal.”

That's not at issue. The stake president didn't actively try to conceal.

From https://casetext.com/case/us-v-johnson-64, Judge Roney writes:

I also enjoyed this from here:

A religious leader not reporting a felony heard in confession isn't concealing a felony and isn't misprision of felony.

 

Yes, I know all that. I was just responding to your generalization, "silence is not a crime," showing that it could be.

[helix]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Yes, I know all that. I was just responding to your generalization, "silence is not a crime," showing that it could be.

But in that case it's still not a crime. Because you have to do some active concealment to assist in hiding the felony.

The problem is that society has something fundamentally wrong with it.  A Catholic priest, who takes on a vow of silence, who sits in church and listens to confessions, and insists on holding his vow of silence as part of 800 year old religious doctrine, is not committing a crime. Society is rotting when many out there think it's illegal to sit in church in this manner.

[Benjamin McGuire]

13 hours ago, JAHS said:

If clergy are require to report everything even if in a confession, would the one perpetrating the abuse just not even consider confessing it for fear of certain arrest and the abuse would continue?
Or if confessed and not reported, could the Bishop perhaps help the person repent and stop the abuse and also provide the abused and family the help they need?  

There is very little evidence that perpetrators actually confess crimes like these in ecclesiastical contexts - and even less evidence that making clergy mandatory reporters would reduce this little bit that does happen by any significant amount.

There is also no evidence that Bishops (who generally have zero training in this sort of thing) are effective enough at counseling that they manage to rehabilitate abusers.

These kinds of arguments are pure fantasy speculations with no grounding in reality.

[JAHS]

56 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

There is very little evidence that perpetrators actually confess crimes like these in ecclesiastical contexts - and even less evidence that making clergy mandatory reporters would reduce this little bit that does happen by any significant amount.

There is also no evidence that Bishops (who generally have zero training in this sort of thing) are effective enough at counseling that they manage to rehabilitate abusers.

These kinds of arguments are pure fantasy speculations with no grounding in reality.

Bishops do encourage the perpetrator to surrender themselves to authorities and rather then counseling them themselves they send them to professional counselors for the help.

[Benjamin McGuire]

21 hours ago, helix said:

And you aren't alone in thinking this. Many academic researchers are coming to the same conclusion. From researcher Mical Raz, MD, PhD who has delved deep into this issue “Reporting has been our one response to concerns about child abuse,” said Dr. Mical Raz, a physician and professor of history at the University of Rochester who has studied the impact of mandatory child abuse reporting. “Now we have quite a bit of data that shows that more reporting doesn’t result in better identification of children at risk and is not associated with better outcomes for children, and in some cases may cause harm to families and communities."

Also: "Of those abused children who are identified by mandatory reports? Does the intervention make their situations better? Another study asked this question.  Of abuse survivors, only 18% said reporting made things better, while 62% said it made things worse. That includes 3% who said it made things much better and 50% who said it made things much worse."

There is a real misrepresentation here.

There is clear and recognized data that showed that the original push for professional mandatory reporting resulted in a decline in child deaths related to abuse.

The problem occurs in the context of deciding when more is better and when it isn't. Making everyone a mandatory reporter creates problems - but most of those problems are directly related to differences in training and education. When states expand mandatory reporting (especially when they make it universal), it never comes with training for those new reporters - and in many contexts, over-reporting can cause as many problems as under-reporting does. I don't think that this is a particularly devisive issue. The challenge occurs when you make the mistake of suggesting that all mandatory reporting is as equally problematic as the professional reporting where most of this begins. When trained professionals report suspected abuse, it is substantiated far more frequently than for reports submitted by untrained professionals. So it is important to recognize that when we see a statement like this one: “Now we have quite a bit of data that shows that more reporting doesn’t result in better identification of children at risk and is not associated with better outcomes for children, and in some cases may cause harm to families and communities," what we are looking at is not an overall image of mandatory reporting but a narrow focus on recent changes that have been made. As the article points out, its focus is on these recent changes:

Quote

Most notably, they expanded the list of professionals required to report it when they suspect a child might be in danger, broadened the definition for what constitutes abuse and increased the criminal penalties for those who fail to report.

Increasing the reporting in these ways hasn't created better results (and this is not . Eliminating the mandatory reporting that existed beforehand will provide far greater negative results than any that might occur by increasing the reporting. Of course the article also spends a lot of time on the problem of outcomes - which aren't caused by mandatory reporting at all. The article details the challenge that occurs when reports increase, but funding and training does not. When we talk about the troubles that come with engagement with law enforcement, these aren't problems that stem directly from mandatory reporting - these are problems that stem from interactions with law enforcement. In the added article that you link to, it seems almost certain that you didn't read the actual study. The thing about the outcomes that you quote is a challenge - because it is isolated in a way that removes the intent of the original study and its implications. Let's provide some takeaways:

1: Age. The vast majority of respondents in that survey were adults (only 14% were minors). This is important to understand because it reflects a variety of secondary issues that come with engagement with CPS and law enforcement. We aren't talking about that in the sorts of cases we generally deal with in these threads. Domestic partner abuse (which is what most of these respondents were dealing with) covers a far more complicated range of issues than child abuse (which is not to say that is less of a problem).

2: Of the survivors of domestic abuse who had looked for help, only 9% of them had their situation reported. One thing that the study was particularly interested in though, was that while it was only 9% who had these situations reported across the entire population, 27% (three times the broad average) of individuals who were trans or claimed to be gender non-conforming were reported. This is similar to the fact that minorities tend to be reported at higher rates more generally than whites, reflecting problematic biases - a problem that grows significantly when we see broader reporting requirements and increased or universal reporting mandates.

3: When the study details things becoming worse - it was about the fact that when abuse was not substantiated, the abusing partner tended to become more abusive. In some cases, the interactions with law enforcement were problematic. In other cases, there was retribution from the abuser. There were no instances in this study where abuse wasn't happening and the reporter made things bad by introducing CPS or law enforcement into a situation where they shouldn't have been. Many of these bad outcomes were caused by a failure of CPS or law enforcement to protect people.

What these kinds of results tell me is that the issue isn't about the reporting. Taking away mandatory reporting isn't going to somehow reduce the number of abusers or the number of victims of that abuse. I think that there is a lot more that could be said, but the arguments that you raise here (which are not new in this forum) aren't particularly helpful in trying to address the problem of child abuse.

How do you propose that we work to eliminate child abuse if we take way mandatory reporters? It's a question I would really like you to answer. In part because I see in your comments a desire to put civil rights (however you mean that term) above human rights. I think that the vast majority of us believe that children have a human right to be raised in a safe environment, free from abuse. I think that for myself (and I would argue most of our society) - these kinds of human rights generally supersede civil rights. So where do you think the appropriate line should be drawn?

[Benjamin McGuire]

@smac97,

I think that ultimately we are faced with this question about human rights - and what we should do as a society to protect those human rights - especially for those most vulnerable members of our society (the very young and the very old). Would you agree that regardless of the legality of the question, that we sometimes have a moral obligation to say things?

And, as I just asked someone else, what do you think would be an effective way to reduce or prevent child abuse in our society?

For me, since I suppose I should be willing to answer these questions that I ask, I would argue that perhaps the greatest problem with mandatory reporters is that they represent a reactive approach. The represent trying to punish those who engage in child abuse (or enablers of that abuse). And in this approach, they not only don't prevent child abuse (although perhaps it would be a better deterrent if the system as a whole was more functional), they just encourage a more aggressive hiding of the abuse. If we really want to reduce abuse, we have to work on the other end - work to eliminate the risk factors that we know are associated with abuse. Politically, that sort of thing isn't anywhere near as popular as an over-reactive drive to punish ...

Edited February 2, 2024 by Benjamin McGuire

[Benjamin McGuire]

52 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Bishops do encourage the perpetrator to surrender themselves to authorities and rather then counseling them themselves they send them to professional counselors for the help.

I don't disagree with this - what I am saying is that this usually occurs (when it occurs) in the context of the Bishop finding out about things from other sources. I don't believe that we have a high volume of perpetrators of this sort of domestic violence who willingly confess to a Bishop. Far more of them are, perhaps, willing to admit only after being confronted by it. But then the cat is already out of the bag. At the very least, we have no evidence that we can use to support the idea that mandatory reporting by clergy prevents confession in any significant quantity (and I have no expectation or belief that it does).

This is not to say that I don't agree with the problem that it represents for religions as a whole - that mandatory reporting creates a trust issue between ecclesiastical leaders and congregants. Our real struggle with this issue of religion and abuse is that the relationship between the two is complicated. We feel a visceral betrayal by the Church when it allows abuse to persist. What good does it do a victim to come to the Church if the Church is simply going to protect in some way the abuser? Doesn't this send a message (intended or not) that the rights of the abuser are greater than the rights of the victims? What do we do when the abuser is a clergyman? I don't think that we have simple answers to these questions - and I think that our society currently views the arguments made by religion as suspect because religious groups don't seem to be much of a willing partner with the larger society on solving these issues.