PA Stake President Charged with Felony Under Mandatory Reporting Law

[Tacenda]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

Agree! And I would easily face excommunication if I was a Catholic, to report especially if you hear it happening over and over and the person never repents fully.

[helix]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

There is a real misrepresentation here.

I'm going to be a bit short and personal once, and then hold my tongue. Peer reviewed research is not useful here because past conversations have demonstrated to me how quickly and consistently all research which goes against desired outcomes gets discounted or rejected. And how quickly weak evidence from non-reliable sources gets embraced.

I just don't think peer reviewed research is effective for our conversations. It's not persuading. So I'm just going to use my time more efficiently here and discuss other things.

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

aren't particularly helpful in trying to address the problem of child abuse.

What I strongly want is far better education across the board of what actually is abuse. TV commercials, radio commercials, billboards, flyers in the mail, conversations in church, K-12 assemblies, etc. I've spoken with numerous abuse victims, and read court testimony from other cases, and every single one had the same variation of this: "I didn't know this abuse was illegal or wrong enough that I deserved outside help." Many of them said "This is what I've known my entire life, I just assumed this is how it is for everybody." It's terrifying to me how various forms of abuse can go on for decades, inside the home, and spouses or children just don't realize that it's wrong. While I don't have the data to see if my broad education approach actually does work, my anecdotal experience has demonstrated when abuse victims get this education, it's like a light bulb goes off in their heads. They learn something and can't unlearn it. They know for the rest of their lives this abuse is wrong. That becomes the inflection point for many of them to get abusive situations fixed and resolved for good. It hurts to see how common abuse is, and it's refreshing to see when education got them out.

I also speak up strongly on this topic because I don't like when people double down on strategies that history demonstrates isn't working. We've had 50 states try numerous permutations of mandatory reporting for decades. It's just not working. History demonstrates that failed policies can rarely be made to work by finding the right tweaks. Mandatory reporting feels like an unsolved Rubik's cube now. It's *got to work, somehow*, right? So just keep trying. But it's arrived at a point where people have run out of simple ideas and now argue that the First Amendment is flawed. That we need to revoke some civil rights and religious rights. That's a clear cut sign we're definitely going down the wrong road.

Edited February 2, 2024 by helix

[smac97]

28 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

@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).

I agree.  And I think a big part of that question is, or should be, the actual efficacy of mandatory reporting laws, their drawbacks, their deleterious effects, and so on.

28 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Would you agree that regardless of the legality of the question, that we sometimes have a moral obligation to say things?

Outside of the law?  Yes.

But the issue here is expressly within the confines of the law.

28 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

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?

A variety of things, I suppose.

We need to address the issue from a legal point of view.  I have serious reservations about whether endlessly expanding mandatory reporting laws is "an effective way."  We may even be doing more harm than good.

There are plenty of organizations that are making policy proposals (see, e.g., here, here, here, here).  We should probably start with examining these. 

28 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

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 ...

I see sexual abuse of children as a predominantly moral issue.  There are substantial limits on what the State can do "politically" in the proactive (rather than reactive) sense you describe here.

The best "proactive" measures will not really involve the government, and will instead involve voices having moral authority that advocate moral frameworks and seek to influence members of society to voluntarily choose to abstain from harmful behaviors.  One such voice is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Benjamin McGuire]

5 minutes ago, helix said:

I just don't think peer reviewed research is effective for our conversations. It's not persuading. So I'm just going to use my time more efficiently here and discuss other things.

Well you haven't really used any so far, so that's not much of a surprise. Substituting commentary for original research doesn't usually go very far.

6 minutes ago, helix said:

What I strongly want is far better education across the board of what actually is abuse.

This won't have much impact.

7 minutes ago, helix said:

I also speak up strongly on this topic because I don't like when people double down on strategies that history demonstrates isn't working. We've had 50 states try numerous permutations of mandatory reporting for decades. It's just not working. History demonstrates that failed policies can rarely be made to work by finding the right tweaks. Mandatory reporting feels like an unsolved Rubik's cube now. It's *got to work, somehow*, right? So just keep trying. But it's arrived at a point where people have run out of simple ideas and now argue that the First Amendment is flawed. That we need to revoke some civil rights and religious rights. That's a clear cut sign we're definitely going down the wrong road.

I have been a mandatory reporter (based on my career choices) for three decades now. I work closely with those who deal with reports of abuse locally. I have some sense of how it actually plays out. If you rely entirely (as it seems you do) on these sorts of things, you miss all of the ways in which it works quite well - and how well run programs do tend to improve lives.

I think that you are wrong about this idea of civil rights. Civil rights only exist because they are a creation of society - a working political structure. We routinely create and revoke civil rights. There is nothing inherently wrong with doing either. Human rights, on the other hand, represent something else entirely. I suspect that if we change the context, you might argue differently. Was getting rid of legal abortion (as a civil right) a "clear cut sign that we're definitely going down the wrong road."? In Michigan, we recently started enforcing a law that says that you can't drive your car with your phone in your hand. That's a revocation of a civil right (although I am not sure that we want to call it going down the wrong road ....). It is clear to me that you are reading the wrong literature. Mandatory reporting has been working for a long time now - in every state. Everything that you are reading doesn't address the issue of how things worked before we started using mandatory reporters - or the declines we saw in child deaths that could be linked to that reporting. So we can look at studies like this (along with its references):

Quote

Since these mandatory reporting laws were implemented, a significant decrease in annual child deaths and substantial increases in the number of total and confirmed maltreatment reports have been observed.

We have been having these debates for 30 years. One of the sources in that study I just linked observes this (published in 2002):

Quote

The success of the reporting laws has created substantial and unanticipated problems for the protective agencies that receive those reports. Most simply have lacked the capacity to respond adequately to a large share of the reports that have flooded in. This reality has resulted in calls to narrow the basis for reporting, increasing the amount  of screening in CPS agencies, and increase the availability of both protective and other child welfare services.

We are still at the same place we were in the early 1990s - except that we continue to make the problem worse by increasing reports without increasing the resources necessary to deal with them. It isn't the mandatory reporting itself that is the problem. The mandatory reporting actually works - when the reporters have the adequate training and understanding. Law enforcement contributes only a small percentage of the reports of abuse. If we take away mandatory reporting, odds are pretty good that we will see a significant decline in substantiated reports of abuse - and this will not come with a decline in actual cases of abuse.

I'll follow up by re-asking the question I wanted you to answer:

Quote

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]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

I have serious reservations about whether endlessly expanding mandatory reporting laws is "an effective way."  We may even be doing more harm than good.

I think that this is absolutely true - as long as we continue to do so without giving the system the resources it needed before the expansions are put in place (adding more work to an overloaded system doesn't help anything).

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

There are substantial limits on what the State can do "politically" in the proactive (rather than reactive) sense you describe here.

I am not sure that I agree with you. We can show that there are links to factors that increase the risk of abuse (poverty, mental health, and so on) - and we could take much more serious efforts than we take now to reduce those risk factors.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

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.

Could you elaborate on this?  It seems like an intractable issue.  The feasibility of providing sufficient "training and education" to all persons categorized as "mandatory reporters" seems . . . low. 

Also, even if we could provide such "training and education" (which, I think, would include covering the criminal penalties involved with mandatory reporting), I think a likely result would be substantial increases in paranoia.  Not about abuse per se, but about being punished under mandatory reporting laws.  This is a particularly potent concern given

• A) the near ubiquity of "mandatory reporter" categories (some statutes are worded to include essentially all adults in the jurisdiction),
• B) the broad and vague wording of many of these statutes (Utah's version: "if a person ... has reason to believe that a child is, or has been, the subject of abuse or neglect ... the person shall immediately report the suspected abuse or neglect...", and Pennsylvania's statute speaks of "if the person has reasonable cause to suspect that a child is a victim of child abuse"), 
• C) the serious consequences for not reporting (the SP in PA is being charged with a felony),
• D) the near-total discretionary authority prosecutors have in pursuing criminal charges, and
• E) the generalized - and in my view, odious - notion of essentially coercing otherwise law-abiding citizens into becoming involuntary agents of the State.

Having "reason to believe" or "reasonable cause to suspect" that something you have not witnessed has happened is a really amorphous concept.  If I have a neighbor with a temper, and later see his child with a skinned knee, do I have "reason to believe" or "reasonable cause to suspect" that child abuse has occurred?  Well, if I am living in PA, and if I go through "training and education" that includes notification that I face a felony for not reporting, I think I would be more inclined to report.  Probably a lot more inclined (such as if I were employed somewhere where I interact with or see a lot of kids).  

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

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 agree.  But that's not the only problem.  If I lived in Pennsylvania, and if I knew that the prosecutor has nearly unfettered discretion to charge me with a felony for not reporting conduct I did not see, but for which there may be "reasonable cause to suspect" happened (i.e., I see a kid with a black eye, a skinned knee, a bruised shin, whatever), then I may end up being substantially more likely to report anything that falls under that vague - and nearly arbitrary - rubric.  No amount of "training and education" can mitigate concerns about prosecutorial overreach and vague statutory language.  Moreover, just being charged with the crime is sufficient to destroy reputations, livelihoods, etc. (per the Deseret News story, the stake president in PA has been placed on leave by his employer).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 2, 2024 by smac97

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, helix said:

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

But even mere knowledge without concealment (mere silence) was historically a crime under common law. And while it is no longer such in most (if not all) common-law jurisdictions, in my opinion it's possible that it could be brought forward. This is because while the English common law is believed by most to be outmoded, in all US states except Louisiana, the common law remains the law of the land (the basic law upon which all of law is built). 

For example, the Revised Code of the State of Washington has this to say:

"The common law, so far as it is not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States, or of the state of Washington nor incompatible with the institutions and condition of society in this state, shall be the rule of decision in all the courts of this state." RCW 4.04.010

It is very rare nowadays, but it used to be possible in some cases to reach the common law in pleadings. An old acquaintance of mine who lived in Minnesota was a law hobbyist who could probably talk rings around most lawyers, and once managed to get a state judge to conduct a case according to common law.

I'm just saying all this because I am a pedant, and smilingly refuse to entirely concede the point on misprision of felony. 

3 hours ago, helix said:

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.

I suppose that you know about the law of unintended consequences. If it once became the case that the clergy-penitent privilege was done away with, this would lead to wrongdoers no longer confiding in clergy. And thus reduce the possibility that the clergy person might be able to counsel the wrongdoer to "do the right thing," and confess to authorities. 

But maybe it should be done away with. It would certainly do something about the controversy in general.

 

[smac97]

On 2/2/2024 at 12:49 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Quote

I have serious reservations about whether endlessly expanding mandatory reporting laws is "an effective way."  We may even be doing more harm than good.

I think that this is absolutely true - as long as we continue to do so without giving the system the resources it needed before the expansions are put in place (adding more work to an overloaded system doesn't help anything).

Could you elaborate?  My sense is that "the system" is overwhelmingly reactive, not proactive.  What currently-unavailable-or-undeployed "resources" can the State deploy to proactively reduce instances of abuse? 

On 2/2/2024 at 12:49 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Quote

There are substantial limits on what the State can do "politically" in the proactive (rather than reactive) sense you describe here.

I am not sure that I agree with you. We can show that there are links to factors that increase the risk of abuse (poverty, mental health, and so on) - and we could take much more serious efforts than we take now to reduce those risk factors.

America is already chockablock full of laws, regulations and statutes governing our behavior.  Nevertheless, decent people abstain from abusing children not because a law prohibits them from doing so, but because such conduct contravenes their own internal moral code.  Conversely, bad people who abuse children do so even while knowing there are serious legal consequences if they are caught.  

John Adams astutely observed: “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”  As a practical matter, the State is materially constrained from proactively regulating the private behavior of its citizens.  That burden lies mostly with religious groups and, ultimately, with families and individuals.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 4, 2024 by smac97

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Agree! And I would easily face excommunication if I was a Catholic, to report especially if you hear it happening over and over and the person never repents fully.

It is not just any Catholic that is in this bind, but those who have devoted their lives to serving men and God.  I would hope that any Catholic priest would never find the question of reporting easy for whatever reason as that would seem to indicate a less than full out commitment to their calling.  I think the conflict is on a whole other level for a Catholic priest than it is for a Saint, even as a bishop.  I believe, if I understand it correctly, breaking the confessional is much more about their relationship with God than it would be for an LDS bishop.  Remember how it was described…that even if someone confessed to putting a bomb under the priest’s bed, they should not even look for the bomb out of curiosity.

Edited February 3, 2024 by Calm

[Tacenda]

29 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is not just any Catholic that is in this bind, but those who have devoted their lives to serving men and God.  I would hope that any Catholic priest would never find the question of reporting easy for whatever reason as that would seem to indicate a less than full out commitment to their calling.  I think the conflict is on a whole other level for a Catholic priest than it is for a Saint, even as a bishop.  I believe, if I understand it correctly, breaking the confessional is much more about their relationship with God than it would be for an LDS bishop.  Remember how it was described…that even if someone confessed to putting a bomb under the priest’s bed, they should not even look for the bomb out of curiosity.

Wow, thanks for "the rest of the story" Calm. I made light of this situation.

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Wow, thanks for "the rest of the story" Calm. I made light of this situation.

I think it is heartbreaking the position any LDS bishop is put into when dealing with balancing the needs of the victims ( which at least theoretically I believe is put first and foremost) with their respect for confidentiality, but while breaking confidentiality might be viewed as a honest mistake by a LDS bishop (assuming it’s ever viewed that way as it would depend on circumstances) and he is then released from his calling perhaps, I can’t imagine the potential for mental pain trying to reconcile one’s serving of the vulnerable which is a big part of Catholic faith from what I have seen with the need to keep the confession inviolate.  I think the only way to live with it is to have a deep faith this is what God has commanded and God will ensure justice and mercy are rightly performed somehow.  I don’t think I could ever, if I was somehow transformed to be both male and Catholic, consider being a priest if only for that one aspect of their calling. I hope I never have anything come close to this in my own life.  So far the only cases of abuse I have been aware of, there was no reason for confidentiality at all.  In fact, there is  very, very little in my life I have had to be confidential about and that is the way I like it.

Edited February 3, 2024 by Calm

[Benjamin McGuire]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

What currently-unavailable-or-undeployed "resources" can the State deploy to proactively reduce instances of abuse? 

I doubt this is the place to get into that particular discussion.

The challenge that we have here is that it is overwhelmingly clear that mandatory reporting has been very helpful - up to a point. That we try to expand it without the resources to make it successful does not mean that the idea is bad or that it doesn't work (the evidence is that it does work). But, here, you and others put forward arguments that the uncontrolled or unfunded expansion of the idea hasn't helped. I don't think that this is contested. What is wrong is the way that people here tend to read this and infer that mandatory reporting has on the whole been bad or ineffective and so should be abandoned. And this seems quite wrong.

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

Also, even if we could provide such "training and education" (which, I think, would include covering the criminal penalties involved with mandatory reporting), I think a likely result would be substantial increases in paranoia.  Not about abuse per se, but about being punished under mandatory reporting laws.  This is a particularly potent concern given

And yet ... this hasn't happened in the past. So I think that this is just unfounded fearmongering on your part. Yes, some have been punished under mandatory reporting laws. And yet, it is a relatively small number in comparison to the substantiated cases of abuse that have been uncovered because of mandatory reporting laws. So, your point it very narrow and isn't particularly useful or even particularly important. I think that this is, perhaps, the reason why you are only interested in discussing it from a legal standpoint. The challenge there, of course, is that laws change. Court interpretation shifts.

Whatever.

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

Having "reason to believe" or "reasonable cause to suspect" that something you have not witnessed has happened is a really amorphous concept.

And yet, on the whole, it is working. It works quite well among professionals who receive regular training and instruction about what this means and how it should be applied. I speak from personal experience, as I note, having been a mandatory reporter for decades in a variety of professional and civic roles. It is certainly more problematic when that list is expanded to include those who aren't provided with this training.

Let's get back to the question that you aren't really answering. What should we do as a society to reduce child abuse. Your previous answer was a complete non-answer - it was actually a sort of garbage answer. You wrote:

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

The best "proactive" measures will not really involve the government, and will instead involve voices having moral authority that advocate moral frameworks and seek to influence members of society to voluntarily choose to abstain from harmful behaviors.  One such voice is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

This of course doesn't really work. Why? Because it assumes that abuse is entirely voluntary. It assumes that that we can find some common moral framework. Let's face it - the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints not only does not have a very large voice, it doesn't have a particularly good track record in preventing child abuse and in helping bring abusers to justice. It is hard to accept religion as providing a common moral framework when religion on the whole has been so culpable in allowing abuse to continue that it is the backlash against this religious record that has led to efforts to make religious figures mandatory reporters just so that there can be some accountability. And, of course, it may be a contributing factor to the continuing decline of religiosity in America. In other words, your suggestion seems to be even less meaningful than the suggestion that we reallocate resources to help with greater education and training, along with increasing the staffing for organizations that fight abuse.

[Benjamin McGuire]

A final thought for @smac97 before I go to bed.

In cases like the one in PA that is being discussed, I think that the LDS Church's position is reasonably clear. The leaders should make every effort to comply with the local laws in terms of reporting abuse. The Church's position isn't that they should look for technicalities to avoid having to disclose anything. It doesn't say that the leadership should ignore laws on the grounds that there might be constitutional reasons why they shouldn't have to comply. When religion appears to be two-faced in these kinds of issues, they have already lost some degree of trust. It shouldn't come as a surprise under those circumstances to see society as a whole continue to push for more accountability.

[smac97]

On 2/2/2024 at 8:07 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

I doubt this is the place to get into that particular discussion.

The challenge that we have here is that it is overwhelmingly clear that mandatory reporting has been very helpful - up to a point.

"Up to a point" being the operative phrase.

I'd like to see data to substantiate this.  Per this 2022 article about Pennsylvania's reforms, expanding "mandatory reporting" hasn't helped things: 

Mandatory Reporting Was Supposed to Stop Severe Child Abuse. It Punishes Poor Families Instead.

Some excerpts:

Quote

More than a decade before the Penn State University child sex abuse scandal broke, an assistant football coach told his supervisors that he had seen Jerry Sandusky molesting a young boy in the shower. When this was revealed during Sandusky’s criminal trial in 2012, it prompted public outcry: Why hadn’t anyone reported the abuse sooner?

In response, Pennsylvania lawmakers enacted sweeping reforms to prevent anything like it from ever happening again.

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.
...
A flood of unfounded reports followed, overwhelming state and local child protection agencies. The vast expansion of the child protection dragnet ensnared tens of thousands of innocent parents, disproportionately affecting families of color living in poverty. While the unintended and costly consequences are clear, there’s no proof that the reforms have prevented the most serious abuse cases, an NBC News and ProPublica investigation found.

Instead, data and child welfare experts suggest the changes may have done the opposite.

• "A flood of unfounded reports."
• "Overwhelming state and local child protection agencies."
• "Ensnared tens of thousands of innocent parents."
• "Disproportionately affecting families of color living poverty."
• "There's no proof that the reforms have prevented the most serious abuse cases."

Quote

The number of Pennsylvania children found to have been abused so severely that they died or were nearly killed has gone up almost every year since — from 96 in 2014 to 194 in 2021, according to state data. State child welfare officials say more vigilance in documenting severe cases of abuse likely contributed to the increase. But child safety advocates and researchers raised concerns that the surge of unfounded reports has overburdened the system, making it harder to identify and protect children who are truly in danger.

In the five years after the reforms took effect, the state’s child abuse hotline was inundated with more than 1 million reports of child maltreatment, state data shows. More than 800,000 of these calls were related not to abuse or serious neglect, but to lower-level neglect allegations often stemming from poverty, most of which were later dismissed as invalid by caseworkers.
...
The number of children reported as possible victims of abuse or serious neglect increased by 72% compared to the five years prior, triggering Child Protective Services investigations into the well-being of nearly 200,000 children from 2015 to 2019...From this pool of reports, child welfare workers identified 6,000 more children who might have been harmed than in the five previous years. But for the vast majority of the 200,000 alleged victims — roughly 9 in 10 — county agencies dismissed the allegations as unfounded after inspecting families’ homes and subjecting parents and children to questioning.

How much damage was done to those "roughly 9 in 10" children and their families who found themselves in the crosshairs of "abuse" investigations by intrusive agents of the State?

Quote

The expanded reporting requirements were even less effective at detecting additional cases of sexual abuse. Some 42,000 children were investigated as possible sex abuse victims from 2015 to 2019 — an increase of 42% from the five years prior — but there was no increase in the number of substantiated allegations, the analysis of federal data showed. In other words, reforms enacted in response to a major sex abuse scandal led to thousands more investigations, but no increase in the number of children identified as likely victims.

(Emphasis added.)

It seems that we may have passed the "point" at which mandatory reporting has been helpful, and have - by continuing to increase the "mandatory reporting" dragnet - entered into "doing affirmative harm to children and families" territory.

Quote

Child welfare experts say these findings cast doubt on the effectiveness of the primary tool that states rely on to protect children: mandatory child abuse reporting. These policies, the bedrock of America’s child welfare system, were first implemented more than half a century ago in response to growing national awareness of child maltreatment. The thinking was simple: By making it a crime for certain professionals to withhold information about suspected abuse, the government could prevent vulnerable children from falling through the cracks.

I don't like citations to unnamed "child welfare experts" and what they purportedly "say."  But the data presented here seems to merit some real consideration.

Quote

Some legal experts and child welfare reform activists argue these laws have created a vast family surveillance apparatus, turning educators, health care workers, therapists and social services providers into the eyes and ears of a system that has the power to take children from their parents.

Well, yes.  Yes, we have done this.  At some real cost: the expansion of the power of the State at the expense of the civil liberties of the citizenry, with tens of thousands of innocent children and families being subjected to intrusive, and sometimes traumatic and damaging, investigations.

And with no appreciable improvement in identifying victims of abuse.

Quote

“I don't think we have evidence that mandated reporting makes children safer,” said Kathleen Creamer, an attorney with Community Legal Services, a Philadelphia nonprofit that provides free representation to parents accused of abuse and neglect. “I actually think we have strong evidence that it puts child safety at risk because it makes parents afraid to seek help, and because it floods hotlines with frivolous calls, making it harder for caseworkers to identify families who really do need services.”

I think these are points worth considering.

Quote

In a yearlong investigation, ProPublica and NBC News are examining the extraordinary reach of America’s child welfare system and its disproportionate impact on the lives of low-income families of color. The stream of reports generated by mandatory reporting is so vast, and so unevenly applied, public health and social work researchers estimate that more than half of all Black children nationally will have been the subject of a child protective services investigation by the time they turn 18 — nearly double the rate of white children.

Pretty troubling, this.  Particularly given the amorphous and subjective and arbitrary notions of "abuse or neglect" which, coupled with threats of punishment from the State for not reporting, are driving up these investigations.

Quote

After a hotline report comes in, it’s the job of child welfare investigators to determine whether a child is truly in danger. These caseworkers aren’t held to the same legal or training standards as law enforcement, but they can wield significant power, ProPublica and NBC News found, sometimes pressuring their way into homes without court orders to comb through closets and pantries, looking for signs of what’s lacking.

Agents of the State abusing power granted via vaguely-worded laws, at the expense of civil liberties of the citizenry.  Must be a day ending in "y."

Quote

Under this system, child welfare agencies investigate the families of 3.5 million children each year and take about 250,000 kids into protective custody, according to federal data. Fewer than 1 in 5 of these family separations are related to allegations of physical or sexual abuse, the original impetus behind mandatory reporting. Instead, the vast majority of removals are based on reports of child neglect, a broad range of allegations often tied to inadequate housing or a parent’s drug addiction.

"250,000 kids into protective custody."

"Fewer than 1 in 5 of these family separations are related to allegations of physical or sexual abuse."

Quote

In response, a growing movement of family lawyers, researchers and child welfare reform advocates have called for a radical change in the approach to child protection in America, starting with the abolition of mandatory reporting. This idea has grown in popularity among both progressive activists and conservatives who oppose what they call excessive government intrusion in the lives of families. Other critics support less dramatic reforms, such as limiting which professionals are required to report and providing better training for mandated reporters.

"Starting with the abolition of mandatory reporting."  Either that or substantially narrowing the scope of such laws.

Quote

Dr. Rachel Berger, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Pittsburgh who served on a task force that paved the way for the 2014 reforms, said the state has not produced evidence to show the changes have made children safer.

In 2020, while testifying before the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, Berger warned lawmakers that the reforms “may have inadvertently made children less safe” by straining the system and siphoning resources away from genuine cases of abuse.

“We are continuing to tell mandated reporters, ‘Report, report, report,’ and nobody can handle it,” Berger said in an interview.

Hmm.

Quote

Richard Wexler, the executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, a Virginia-based advocacy group, said that this logic ignores the harm that comes with unnecessary government intrusion in the lives of innocent families. Simply having an investigation opened can be traumatic, experts say, and numerous studies show that separating young children from their parents leads to increased risk of depression, developmental delays, attachment issues and post-traumatic stress disorder.

It isn’t necessary to threaten educators, social workers, doctors and other professionals with criminal charges in order to protect children, Wexler argued.

“Abolishing mandatory reporting does not mean abolishing reporting,” he said. “Anybody can still call ChildLine. What it does, however, is put the decision back in the hands of professionals to exercise their judgment concerning when to pick up the phone.”

Sage words, these.

It's a very long article, but definitely worth a read.

On 2/2/2024 at 8:07 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

That we try to expand it without the resources to make it successful does not mean that the idea is bad or that it doesn't work (the evidence is that it does work).

Could you point me to the evidence you are referencing here?

On 2/2/2024 at 8:07 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

But, here, you and others put forward arguments that the uncontrolled or unfunded expansion of the idea hasn't helped.

What I have "put forward" is based on  what the data and experts in the field seem to be saying.

On 2/2/2024 at 8:07 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

I don't think that this is contested.

There are plenty of issues arising from mandatory reporting that have little or nothing to do with lack of funds.  See above.

On 2/2/2024 at 8:07 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

What is wrong is the way that people here tend to read this and infer that mandatory reporting has on the whole been bad or ineffective and so should be abandoned. And this seems quite wrong.

Okay.  I'd like to see evidence and reasoning to substantiate this.

On 2/2/2024 at 8:07 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Quote

Also, even if we could provide such "training and education" (which, I think, would include covering the criminal penalties involved with mandatory reporting), I think a likely result would be substantial increases in paranoia.  Not about abuse per se, but about being punished under mandatory reporting laws.  This is a particularly potent concern given

And yet ... this hasn't happened in the past.

Are you sure?  Pennsylvania sure seems to be a cautionary tale along these lines.

On 2/2/2024 at 8:07 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

So I think that this is just unfounded fearmongering on your part.

To express concern about unintended deleterious effects of ceding substantial authority to State, particularly given the questionable efficacy of such measures, is not to monger fear.

Nor is what has been said here "unfounded."  Multiple articles have been cited.  Good amounts of statistical data, evidence, arguments from experts.

On 2/2/2024 at 8:07 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Yes, some have been punished under mandatory reporting laws. And yet, it is a relatively small number in comparison to the substantiated cases of abuse that have been uncovered because of mandatory reporting laws. So, your point it very narrow and isn't particularly useful or even particularly important.

There's a stake president in Pennsylvania who may have some qualms about the operation of mandatory reporting laws.

The erosion of civil liberties is important.

The expansion of the State, particularly the "Surveillance State," merits attention.

The actual and substantive results of expanding mandatory reporting laws are important.

On 2/2/2024 at 8:07 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Quote

Having "reason to believe" or "reasonable cause to suspect" that something you have not witnessed has happened is a really amorphous concept.

And yet, on the whole, it is working.

Again, from the article cited above:

• "A flood of unfounded reports."
• "Overwhelming state and local child protection agencies."
• "Ensnared tens of thousands of innocent parents."
• "Disproportionately affecting families of color living poverty."
• "There's no proof that the reforms have prevented the most serious abuse cases."
• "In other words, reforms enacted in response to a major sex abuse scandal led to thousands more investigations, but no increase in the number of children identified as likely victims."

Thomas Sowell has previously posited three questions that I often deploy when evaluating actions taken by the State, or proposals to expand the power of the State:

"The first is – compared to what?"

"The second is – at what cost?"

"And the third is – what hard evidence do you have?”

What answers do we get when we apply these questions to the issue of the efficacy and maintenance of mandatory reporting laws?

On 2/2/2024 at 8:07 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

It works quite well among professionals who receive regular training and instruction about what this means and how it should be applied.

And yet mandatory reporting laws encompass far more than these professionals.  Indeed, that it one of the central criticisms of the current state of affairs.

On 2/2/2024 at 8:07 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

I speak from personal experience, as I note, having been a mandatory reporter for decades in a variety of professional and civic roles. It is certainly more problematic when that list is expanded to include those who aren't provided with this training.

So we should not only threaten otherwise law-abiding citizens with substantial criminal penalties under mandatory reporting laws, we should also compel them to attend trainings?  

On 2/2/2024 at 8:07 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Let's get back to the question that you aren't really answering. What should we do as a society to reduce child abuse. Your previous answer was a complete non-answer - it was actually a sort of garbage answer.

Your continuing lack of civility and tendency to resort to personal taunts and digs are impediments to discussion.

It's surprising really, since we both oppose child abuse, and are both members of the Church, and so ought to have a lot of common ground.  And yet nastiness abounds in your comments.

On 2/2/2024 at 8:07 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

You wrote:

Quote

The best "proactive" measures will not really involve the government, and will instead involve voices having moral authority that advocate moral frameworks and seek to influence members of society to voluntarily choose to abstain from harmful behaviors.  One such voice is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I did not write this as an answer to the question of "What should we do as a society to reduce child abuse."  See here.

On 2/2/2024 at 8:07 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

This of course doesn't really work.

You'll need to do more than merely assert this, particularly in an "of course" sort of way.

Religious observance has all sorts of positive effects on society.  See, for example, this excellent 2017 presentation by Daniel Peterson:

What Difference Does It Make?

Some excerpts:

Quote

A robust faith, like the loss of one, makes a difference.

Health

For one thing, it apparently makes people healthier.
...
 

For several decades, Armand Nicholi, a clinical professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School as well as the editor and co-author of the Harvard Guide to Psychiatry, has taught an honors course for Harvard College and Harvard Medical School that’s focused on Freud and the great Christian writer C.S. Lewis. Although the two never actually met, Nicholi puts them in dialogue and comparison with each other. (This isn’t as arbitrary as it might seem: Lewis, an atheist for half his life, was well aware of Freud’s writings.)

In 2002, based upon that course, Nicholi published The Question of God: C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud Debate God, Love, Sex and the Meaning of Life. It’s a fascinating study, and one could easily argue from it that Lewis led a healthier and happier life than did Freud.

Via such publications as Is Religion Good for Your Health: The Effects of Religion on Physical and Mental Health (1997), his Handbook of Religion and Mental Health (1998), and his editorship of the Oxford Handbook of Religion and Health (2012), Harold Koenig, a psychiatrist on the faculty of Duke University, has established himself as a premier authority in this area. He and his collaborators argue that religious involvement is correlated with better mental health in the areas of depression, substance abuse and suicide, and, somewhat less certainly, with better results in the treatment of stress-related disorders and dementia.

Moreover, according to Tyler VanderWeele, professor of epidemiology at Harvard University, recent research published by himself and his colleagues in various top-tier medical journals confirms the links that previous scientific investigation had identified between attendance at religious services and enhanced health. Regular attendance is associated, for example, with “a roughly 30 percent reduction in mortality over 16 years of follow-up; a five-fold reduction in the likelihood of suicide; and a 30 percent reduction in the incidence of depression,” VanderWeele writes.[1]

But the apparent blessings don’t end there: Regular participation in communal religious worship appears to be associated with “greater likelihood of healthy social relationships and stable marriages; an increased sense of meaning in life; higher life satisfaction; an expansion of one’s social network; and more charitable giving, volunteering, and civic engagement,” says VanderWeele.

In his 2009 book Is Faith Delusion? Why Religion is Good for Your Health, Dr. Andrew Sims, former president of the United Kingdom’s Royal College of Psychiatrists and professor of psychiatry at the University of Leeds, contends, on the basis of his own psychiatric practice as well as a large number of scientific studies, that “people with religious belief, rather than being timid and lacking clear convictions, have a greater sense of direction and feeling of independence from control.” Indeed, one of the major themes of his book is that “religious belief tends to be associated with better health, both physical and mental.”

“The advantageous effect of religious belief and spirituality on mental and physical health is one of the best-kept secrets in psychiatry, and medicine generally,” he writes. “If the findings of the huge volume of research on this topic had gone in the opposite direction and it had been found that religion damages your mental health, it would have been front-page news in every newspaper in the land!”

Moreover, Sims contends, “churches are almost the only element in society to have offered considerate, caring, long-lasting and self-sacrificing support to the mentally ill,” which is one of the reasons why “religious involvement results in a better outcome from a range of illnesses, both mental and physical.”

In the majority of scientific studies, Sims summarizes, religious involvement correlates with enhanced well-being, happiness and life-satisfaction; greater hope and optimism, even when facing serious diseases, such as breast cancer; a stronger sense of purpose and meaning in life; higher self-esteem; better responses to bereavement; greater social support; less loneliness; lower rates of depression and faster recovery from depression; reduced rates of suicide; decreased anxiety; better coping with stress; less psychosis and fewer psychotic tendencies; lower rates of alcohol and drug abuse; less delinquency and criminal activity; and greater marital stability and satisfaction. A strong faith and the positive relationships and thinking associated with church membership fortify the immune system, “thus reducing the risk of cancer, improving general health and protecting the cardiovascular system.”

“When looking at the overall effects of religious belief and practice on whole populations,” he writes, “there is substantial evidence that religion is highly beneficial for all areas of health, and especially mental health.”

Hmm.

Might religious involvement also have beneficial effects in terms of dissuading people from engaging in abusive behavior?

Quote

In America’s Blessings: How Religion Benefits Everyone, Including Atheists, Rodney Stark draws a number of striking conclusions after surveying the relevant data. Some of this will repeat what I’ve already said. Which is fine. I want it to be remembered.

Regardless of their age, Stark says, religious people are much less likely to commit crimes. Accordingly, the higher a city’s church membership rate, the lower its rates of burglary, larceny, robbery, assault, rape, sexually transmitted disease and homicide. In a cleverly designed test at Pepperdine University, a disappointing 45 percent of weekly church attenders turned out to be honest, but that was still more than three times the 13 percent rating of non-attenders.

Curiously, however, although nearly 250 studies conducted between 1944 and 2010 showed clear evidence that religion helps to reduce delinquency, deviation and crime, virtually no standard textbooks on criminology so much as mention “religion” in their indexes. But the fact remains, says Stark, that “All Americans are safer and their property more secure because this is such a religious nation.”

Religious people are the primary source of charitable funds not only for religious causes but for secular philanthropies that benefit all victims of distress and misfortune. They are far more likely to volunteer their time for programs that benefit society and to be active in civic matters.

As I’ve already noted, fashionable schools of psychology have long taught that religion either contributes to mental illness or is itself a dangerous species of psychopathology. But the evidence, says Professor Stark, “shows overwhelmingly that religion protects against mental illness.” For example, persons with strong, conservative religious beliefs are less depressed than those with weak and loose religious beliefs. “They are happier, less neurotic, and far less likely to commit suicide.”

Religious people are more likely to marry and to stay married than their irreligious counterparts, and, on the whole, they express greater satisfaction with their marriages and their spouses. They are far less likely to have extramarital affairs. In addition, “Religious husbands are substantially less likely to abuse their wives or children.” Mother-child relationships are stronger for frequent church attenders than for those who rarely if ever go to church, and for mothers and children who regard religion as very important, they’re stronger than for those church-attenders who don’t value religion so highly. Precisely the same thing holds for the level of satisfaction of teenagers with their families. Greater religiosity means higher satisfaction.

So, religiosity seems to have a pretty substantial beneficial effect on society in many different ways.  I suspect that includes reduced instances of abuse.

On 2/2/2024 at 8:07 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Why? Because it assumes that abuse is entirely voluntary.

No, it doesn't.

On 2/2/2024 at 8:07 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

It assumes that that we can find some common moral framework.

We can do this.  I am surprised that you think otherwise.

On 2/2/2024 at 8:07 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Let's face it - the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints not only does not have a very large voice, it doesn't have a particularly good track record in preventing child abuse and in helping bring abusers to justice.

A few things to unpack here.

First, my reference to the Church was illustrative, not exhaustive (I said there are "voices having moral authority that advocate moral frameworks and seek to influence members of society to voluntarily choose to abstain from harmful behaviors," and that the Church is "one such voice").  There are many religious groups espousing precepts which, if followed, will lead individuals to lead better lives, including refraining from abuse.

Second, I think the Church has a very large voice in the lives of those who subscribe to it.  The same goes for people of other faith traditions.

Third, I think you are unduly and unfairly smearing the Church here.  I don't think it's possible to coherently measure how a religious organization "prevents" child abuse.  In any event, the Church consistently teaches its members to not engage in abusive behavior, so when Latter-day Saints follow this counsel, they are creating a pretty good "track record" for the Church.

Fourth, as for "helping bring abusers to justice," it is not within the mandate of the Church, nor of any other religious group, to function as an agent or appendage of the State.  "Bring{ing} abusers to justice" is a civic duty, not a religious one.

On 2/2/2024 at 8:07 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

It is hard to accept religion as providing a common moral framework when religion on the whole has been so culpable in allowing abuse to continue that it is the backlash against this religious record that has led to efforts to make religious figures mandatory reporters just so that there can be some accountability. And, of course, it may be a contributing factor to the continuing decline of religiosity in America. In other words, your suggestion seems to be even less meaningful than the suggestion that we reallocate resources to help with greater education and training, along with increasing the staffing for organizations that fight abuse.

Again, there are plenty of organizations that are making policy proposals about how to improve societal efforts to reduce, detect, address, etc. child abuse (see, e.g., here, here, here, here).  We should probably start with examining these. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 5, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

On 2/2/2024 at 8:21 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

A final thought for @smac97 before I go to bed.

Oi.

On 2/2/2024 at 8:21 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

In cases like the one in PA that is being discussed, I think that the LDS Church's position is reasonably clear.

So do I.

On 2/2/2024 at 8:21 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

The leaders should make every effort to comply with the local laws in terms of reporting abuse.

Well, yes.  "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law." (AoF 1:12.)

That we are generally obligated to obey the laws of the land does not mean that we cannot critique those laws.

On 2/2/2024 at 8:21 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

The Church's position isn't that they should look for technicalities to avoid having to disclose anything.

I don't think this is an apt characterization of things.  The Church created the helpline to assist bishops in complying with the law.  Part of that involves the Priest-Penitent Privilege.  The laws governing mandatory reporting can often be complex.

On 2/2/2024 at 8:21 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

It doesn't say that the leadership should ignore laws on the grounds that there might be constitutional reasons why they shouldn't have to comply.

What are you saying here?  I don't think the Church has invoked "constitutional reasons," or any other reasons, to not comply with the laws of the land. 

On 2/2/2024 at 8:21 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

When religion appears to be two-faced in these kinds of issues, they have already lost some degree of trust. It shouldn't come as a surprise under those circumstances to see society as a whole continue to push for more accountability.

I think we ought to be very cautious as to whether we should cede more power and authority to the State, particularly at the expense of the civil liberties, and with dubious results.

I will reiterate an observation I made earlier, which you labeled "garbage":

Quote

The best "proactive" measures will not really involve the government, and will instead involve voices having moral authority that advocate moral frameworks and seek to influence members of society to voluntarily choose to abstain from harmful behaviors.  One such voice is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

"One such voice is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  There are many other such voices as well.

I remain curious about "resources" you think the State can deploy, in proactive rather than reactive fashion, to reduce child abuse.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 4, 2024 by smac97

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

'd like to see data to substantiate this.  Per this 2022 article about Pennsylvania's reforms, expanding "mandatory reporting" hasn't helped things: 

Ben has not argued for expanding mandatory reporting, so why are you acting like he has?  He has stated his position several times, he is for mandatory reporting for trained professionals.  That is where it has been so successful in his view.  I suspect he is fine with expanding training, but if you appeal to reports using expanding untrained reporting, they are useless in rebutting his position and a waste of everyone’s time.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/75738-pa-stake-president-charged-with-felony-under-mandatory-reporting-law/?do=findComment&comment=1210175165

Quote

The mandatory reporting actually works - when the reporters have the adequate training and understanding.

Quote

The best "proactive" measures will not really involve the government, and will instead involve voices having moral authority that advocate moral frameworks and seek to influence members of society to voluntarily choose to abstain from harmful behaviors.  One such voice is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

And how do you plan or do you see others planning on creating the level of moral authority needed to make a significant impact?  Serious question.  If past behaviour is best predictor of future behaviour, where are the successful efforts?

I see the abstinence only programs as an example of a major attempt to use moral and other social authority to increase commitment to being virgins when married….evidence suggests not only were they a failure, sexual education programs which included teaching lower risk sexual behaviour, such as condom use actually were more successful for getting kids to at least delay sexual activity until older.  Very disappointing, but if you want to actually change others’ behaviours and not just you and those who already agree with you live by your own ideals, seems like facing reality needs to happen first.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6615479/

The Church has been voicing with moral authority advocating for members and others to abstain from many behaviours, including abuse.  While this may have achieved some change, where is the indication it has had the effect to drop child abuse rates significantly in even the US where it likely has the most presence?  I am not seeing an increase of moral behaviour out there, even though the Church and other moral authorities have much greater reach and at least for our Church, people are much more aware of it and curious about it and so if ever there was an opportunity where your best proactive measure might be working, surely it would be now.  If you have evidence of any increase, would love to see it.

Perhaps we could use counties that have a high percentage of LDS and see if there has been significant drops of child abuse in these countries…..though how that is going to impact countries with much lower numbers and less public presence I am not seeing it.

There is not a lot of historical data for Tonga and Samoa, where the Church is over ten percent of the population, but current status is high rates of domestic violence and abuse.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0190740920321022

Quote

In a study comparing intentional injury in 11–17 year olds from three Pacific nations (Federated States of Micronesia, Tonga and Vanuatu) over 60% of 11 year old Tongan children reported intentional injury in the last 12 months (Smith et al., 2008).

—-

Quote

remain curious about "resources" you think the State can deploy, in proactive rather than reactive fashion, to reduce child abuse.

https://www.deseret.com/2023/11/2/23938771/child-abuse-covid-19-pandemic-increase-decrease
 

Quote

Since then, however, some medical experts have reached a different conclusion: As child abuse reports went down significantly during the pandemic, they believe some pandemic-era supports and other factors may have protected some of the nation’s most vulnerable children. Two years into the pandemic, cases started to climb again, about the time that those supports were ending, they say.

Quote

After decades of steadily rising, rates of child welfare referral rates dropped 10% from 2019 to 2020, “with these reductions occurring almost exclusively in the post-lockdown era beginning in late March 2020,” wrote Campbell and her co-authors and fellow child abuse experts, Dr. Joanne N. Wood, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and Dr. Rachel P. Berger, of the University of Pittsburgh.

Quote

The three doctors suggest in their commentary that the difference with COVID-19 arises from pandemic supports, “an array of unprecedented social welfare policies previously identified as possible child abuse prevention strategies, including paid family leave, basic income and child tax credits, extension of eligibility for government health insurance and protection from eviction and foreclosure.”

Evidence that families under economic stress are more likely to be abusive…

Quote

Experts predicted more abuse in part because of historical patterns of an increase in child abuse during crises, including the 2008 recession, which had a “4.5% increase in serious maltreatment for each percentage point increase in the foreclosure rate,” as well as during natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina.

 

Edited February 4, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

Just now, Calm said:

Ben has not argued for expanding mandatory reporting so why are you acting like he has?  

Mandatory reporting laws have already been expanded, and he is defending them in their expanded state.

Just now, Calm said:

Quote

The best "proactive" measures will not really involve the government, and will instead involve voices having moral authority that advocate moral frameworks and seek to influence members of society to voluntarily choose to abstain from harmful behaviors.  One such voice is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

And how do you plan or do you see others planning on creating the level of moral authority needed to make a significant impact?  Serious question.

We live in a constitutional federal republic, a central feature of which is, or is supposed to be, substantial limitations on the power of the State, particularly the Federal Government.  The State is not really situated to inculcate citizens with personal moral values, such as those which individuals use to voluntarily and proactively constrain their own behaviors (such as, for example, abstaining from child abuse).  The State will, in my view, never have this sort of "moral authority."  For that, I think we must rely on the "voices" I referenced earlier.  These voices can have the "proactive" effect of inducing voluntary abstention from child abuse.  There will always be segments of society who will not listen to these voices, and for them the reactive power of the State must step in.

Just now, Calm said:

If past behaviour is best predictor of future behaviour, where are the successful efforts?

Amongst communities in which individuals voluntarily adopt moral frameworks which preclude and condemn child abuse.

Just now, Calm said:

I see the abstinence only programs as an example of a major attempt to use moral and other social authority to increase commitment to being virgins when married….evidence suggests not only were they a failure, sexual education programs which included teaching lower risk sexual behaviour, such as condom use actually were more successful for getting kids to at least delay sexual activity until older.  Very disappointing, but if you want to actually change others’ behaviours and not just you and those who already agree with you live by your own ideals, seems like facing reality needs to happen first.

Okay.  How does this relate to "proactive" measures re: child abuse?

Just now, Calm said:

The Church has been voicing with moral authority advocating for members to abstain.  While this may have achieved some change, where is the indication it has had the effect to drop child abuse rates significantly in even the US where it likely has the most presence?

As I noted in a post from a few minutes ago, my reference to the Church was illustrative, not exhaustive (I said there are "voices having moral authority that advocate moral frameworks and seek to influence members of society to voluntarily choose to abstain from harmful behaviors," and that the Church is "one such voice").  There are many religious groups espousing precepts which, if followed, will lead individuals to lead better lives, including refraining from abuse.

I have also posted lengthy excerpts from Daniel Peterson's 2017 presentation about the societal benefits which accrue from religious observance.  I submit that reduced instances of child abuse are likely among these benefits.

Just now, Calm said:

I am not seeing an increase of moral behaviour out there, even though the Church and other moral authorities have much greater reach and at least for our Church, people are much more aware of it and curious about it and so if ever there was an opportunity where your best proactive measure might be working, surely it would be now.  If you have evidence of any increase, would love to see it.

I am not sure what you are saying here.  My position, noted above, is that there are "voices having moral authority that advocate moral frameworks and seek to influence members of society to voluntarily choose to abstain from harmful behaviors," and that these voices provide the best "proactive" measures to reduce instances of child abuse.

Just now, Calm said:

Perhaps we could use counties that have a high percentage of LDS and see if there has been significant drops of child abuse in these countries…..though how that is going to impact countries with much lower numbers and less public presence I am not seeing it.

If you are aware of such datasets, please let me know.

One potentially valuable resource could be data regarding the BSA sex abuse scandals, as noted in this article: 

Latter-day Saint Enigma: Their Unexpected Troop Abuse Rates

Some excerpts:

Quote

Are Latter-day Saints more likely to abuse kids? Through statistical analysis of the BSA abuse case, we have our first data-supported answer to the question.

That's the lede.

Quote

On April 19, 2023, The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) announced they had cleared the final hurdle before emerging from Chapter 11 Bankruptcy. 
...
The reality of even one case of abuse is tragic, let alone many times. Any abuse is too much, and every part of this is sad—including when it took place within Latter-day Saint units.  
...

There are 82,000 claims against the BSA; some of those are court cases, and others are people who can make a claim against the settlement fund without going to court. Every single one represents a heartbreaking story where the trust of a child was broken. 

There is no publicly available way to access all of those claims right now; perhaps someday, when the settlement process is over, there will be. However, the Boy Scouts have kept records of abuse happening in their ranks for almost 80 years in a system officially called “The Ineligible Volunteer Files,” but colloquially referred to as the P-Files. P for perversion. A database of these files was created by the L.A. Times and can be viewed online. The oldest file goes back to 1947, and there are 5400 of them. 

What do these records tell us about Latter-day Saint abuse in affiliated troops? If they represent 20-30% of BSA troops, are they responsible for that same proportion of abuse cases as critics claim? 

Well?  Do you think data about abuse in LDS-sponsored troops, compared to other other BSA troops, might be an indicator as to the efficacy of the Church's teachings on sexuality, the treatment of children, the evils of child abuse, etc.?

Quote

I decided to investigate. I called up Stephen Cranney, a Ph.D. statistical analyst, to consult on a plan of how to best answer this question. We decided to analyze 10% of the files based on random sampling (540 files). Then I went to work reading and coding these files, a process that took over 40 hours. 

Each file contains the name of the adult leader, some basic information about him (there are a handful of women in the database, but it’s 99% men), a summary of the abuse that is alleged, any relevant correspondence or legal documents, newspaper clippings, victim statements, photographs, and more. So, with some digging, it is possible to determine the percentage of abusers who came from a specific region, or a certain decade, or from troops sponsored by particular groups, including Latter-day Saint abuse.

About half of the files list the man’s religion, and almost all of them list the sponsoring agency. If a specific religion was listed, they were sorted based on those identifying cases of Latter-day Saint abuse.  If religion was not listed, but the troop’s sponsoring agency was listed, they were placed into the same categories. Files that listed neither religion nor sponsoring agency (25 total in my sample) were thrown out since it was impossible to confirm if they were affiliated with any church. We then replaced those with 25 randomly drawn files that did contain the needed information. 

The results were fascinating. Really fascinating. 

Indeed.

Quote

While Latter-day Saint church-affiliated troops made up 20-30% of all BSA troops, the proportion of Latter-day Saint abuse cases was far lower—5.16%, to be exact.

Any non-zero number relating to child abuse is a terrible thing.  But what are your thoughts about the foregoing analysis?

Quote

Why do we see such lower rates of Latter-day Saint abuse? There are many potential reasons for this, which I’ve reviewed here in a separate piece. But I have one main theory: It’s the system of callings in the Church of Jesus Christ. In other organizations, if you want access to children, you can volunteer and be given it very quickly. In our system, you have to wait until you’re called. And this has a throttling effect creating lower rates of abuse. 

The link above is to an excellent 2022 article by Jennifer Roach, herself an abuse survivor:

Better Protecting Children of All Faiths

Some excerpts:

Quote

The Southern Baptist Convention recently released a 288-page report detailing how the denomination covered up sexual abuse for years. The denomination kept a secret list of 703 known abusers, some of whom are still working as ministers today. According to this report, the leaders did nothing to warn members of the danger and they took, “no action to ensure that the accused ministers were no longer in positions of power at SBC churches.” 

This is a blow—not only for this faith organization itself but even more for the many individuals whose faith in Jesus Christ has been strengthened by their participation and participation in the same. Along with the many other observers, we mourn with other believers who are saddened and sickened by these revelations—and even more, or the many victims whose cries are now being heard, all too late.  

To put these numbers in perspective, the Southern Baptist Convention has roughly 14 million members and about 47,000 affiliated churches. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to which I belong has nearly 17 million members and 31,000 wards (congregations) or branches. In terms of size, the two faiths are in basically the same category. That something like this could creep into any large community is not surprising—but the size of the disclosure is. Especially for a body of committed disciples of Jesus Christ, we join the many others grappling with the obvious question:  How could this have happened?  

The next natural question for any Latter-day Saint would be: Are we doing any better?

A fair question.

Quote

Before I give you my own opinion you should also know this: I am a survivor of sexual abuse by my (non-Latter-day Saint) youth pastor. Subsequently, I took my childhood church to court for my abuse and won. (If you’re curious, you can read a series of articles about it here in the Modesto Bee, a California newspaper, Teen said a Modesto pastor abused her. Church “swept it under the rug.”). I’m now a licensed mental health therapist and have worked extensively with abuse victims. I’m also a fairly recent convert to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—not quite an outsider.  But since I joined the Church just 3.5 years ago I might be noticing some things that lifelong members don’t. So, while my opinion isn’t based on hard numbers, it’s a very informed opinion. 

She continues:

Quote

Ways we’re getting it right. Here’s the good news: We are getting some things very right. If you’ve been a lifelong Latter-day Saint, you might not realize that some of the mundane and rather boring aspects of church governance actually offer protections that members of other churches don’t have (but potentially could if they adopted them too).  There are a number of examples, here are three especially deserving of attention: 

1. The member number system. Among Southern Baptists, they have no way to track members or leaders who move from state to state or church to church. A person can abuse in one church and freely move to another without anyone being the wiser. 
...
2. Callings. Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are regularly asked to serve in callings by their local leadership.
...
3. Withdrawal of Membership. As an abuse victim myself I will tell you that enduring the actual abuse wasn’t the worst of it. The worst was that the church I was part of at the time took my abuser’s side.
...

Ways We Can Do Better

Despite these positive things to appreciate there are two major areas I see where we could be doing better. 

She goes on to propose that we get away from the "church culture" which discourages youth from reporting aberrant/strange/questionable behavior towards them.

These are, of course, all "reactive" measures taken after abuse has already occurred.  My comments have been about proactive measures to reduce instances of abuse from happening in the first place.  I question the notion that the State can have much of a rule to play in that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

See the bottom of my above posts for proactive measures that have been demonstrated to have a likely effect of lowering abuse rates. 

[Calm]

53 minutes ago, smac97 said:

My comments have been about proactive measures to reduce instances of abuse from happening in the first place.

The suggestions that Jennifer pointed out work in a faith community. How do you suggest they get applied in the general population?

How would any proactive moral voice the Church puts out have a large effect on the general population?…Even if the effect on the individual and individual families can be magnificent when converted, that will only reach a small minority of any population, at least until the Millennium.

“She kept saying, “This is a woman’s church.” Lillian didn’t really know what she was talking about. And she’s smiling and saying, “Yeah.” But the woman just kept pumping her hand and saying over and over again, “This is a woman’s church.” And finally Lillian said, “What do you mean, ‘This is a woman’s church?’” And she said, “We have just been in the marvelous Relief Society that teaches us not only spiritual things but temporal things about how to make our lives and our children and our families better. And at the same time your husband is in the Priesthood room and he is teaching our husbands that the culture of the church does not allow for them to beat their wives and their children.””

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2014/womans-church

Edited February 4, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

On 2/4/2024 at 12:42 AM, smac97 said:

But what are your thoughts about the foregoing analysis?

This has been discussed.  I am very familiar with Jennifer’s work.  She shared it with the FAIR group.  I have been saying much the same things over the years and I appreciate that now there is data that backs my opinion.

But the majority of abuse doesn’t happen in church and not in LDS families or at LDS activities if only because we are few percentagewise, so unfortunately not going to have much impact on the vast majority of cases.

If your proactive solution is to convert the world to become members of our faith, great optimism, but does nothing to help the vast numbers of abuse cases that will happen prior to the Millennium.

Quote

One potentially valuable resource could be data regarding the BSA sex abuse scandals, as noted in this article: 

Seriously, I don’t see why you think this is a potentially valuable resource for lowering rates of child abuse in our greater communities given there is no evidence presented that having LDS troops present lowered the rates in the surrounding nonLDS troops, which is the type of data that would be relevant to this discussion imo.

Edited February 5, 2024 by Calm

[awyatt]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

The suggestions that Jennifer pointed out work in a faith community. How do you suggest they get applied in the general population?

Having read through all of this tread, it seems to me that this is the crux of the matter. From this old fart's perspective, there is more abuse today because (1) we have redefined what constitutes abuse and (2) our general societal moral "bulwarks" are no longer in place.

As to (1), just think of the old adage of "spare the rod and spoil the child." Acting upon such today is viewed as perpetrating abuse. Our society used to be much more accepting (and expecting) of corporal punishment in almost any form. Today, not so much, with the possible exception in some regions, but not all, of accepting spanking. When you broaden the definition of what constitutes abuse, you axiomatically increase the incidence of abuse.

As for (2), there were, in the past, greater societal consequences to aberrant behavior of any type. People who acted against the generally accepted morals of society were punished by that society, oft times in a fast and furious manner. So, yes, Jennifer's suggestions would work in a faith community, and at one time we used to live in a society which, in general, was a "faith community.

Think, for a moment, about smac's quoting of John Adams, earlier: “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” (In my remembrance, though, I thought this was a quote from Franklin and not Adams.) Regardless of the author of the quote, does anyone believe that the definition of "a moral and religious people" in 1787/88 was different than the society in which we live today? Would Adams (or Franklin) view our Constitution as sustainable in today's moral environment? So Jennifer's suggestions may not work, simply because of the society at large. And trying to legislate morality seems an exercise doomed to ultimate failure. Such legislation may win battles, but the war will, at length, be lost.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not arguing that we return to those "good old days of yore." We live in a societal milieu in which we are comfortable. I will say, however, that societal pendulums swing, and if we ever return to a society in which the moral bulwarks more closely resemble those of 75, 150, 0r 200 years ago, then we will see less instances of abuse because society, as a whole, will have an interest in teaching people not to engage in such behavior and will punish offenders of those bulwarks.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, awyatt said:

if we ever return to a society in which the moral bulwarks more closely resemble those of 75, 150, 0r 200 years ago, then we will see less instances of abuse because society, as a whole, will have an interest in teaching people not to engage in such behavior and will punish offenders of those bulwarks.

Yes, I think the best result would be somehow to learn and accept as a society what causes unnecessary harm, especially to children who have few defenses against it…that are healthy at least as those need to be learned…and also somehow have stronger moral bulwarks, also healthier versions.  How to get there as a complete society though, that’s the issue.  Between consumerism that has led to almost instant gratification (Amazon same day delivery and eBay are remarkable to me given I remember taking years to find stuff I wanted that takes me less than an hour to track down and often I have it within a day or two) which tends to decrease self sacrifice, either for one’s own good or others imo (along with quite a few other attributes of our society) and the ability to find support for pretty any view, which removes a lot of pressure to keep an open mind or to attempt to reach compromise, I don’t see how any moral voice can be heard over all the clutter unless one is already seeking it.  Changing hearts and minds is an uphill battle. I also believe this is not something that can be maintained.  Pressures will be changing and it’s going to be interesting if this will push for more cooperation or struggles to dominate. 

[smac97]

On 2/4/2024 at 1:42 AM, Calm said:

Quote

But what are your thoughts about the foregoing analysis?

This has been discussed.  I am very familiar with Jennifer’s work.  

Okay.

On 2/4/2024 at 1:42 AM, Calm said:

She shared it with the FAIR group.  I have been saying much the same things over the years and I appreciate that now there is data that backs my opinion.

So is this relevant to you inquiry ("Perhaps we could use counties that have a high percentage of LDS and see if there has been significant drops of child abuse in these countries...")?

On 2/4/2024 at 1:42 AM, Calm said:

But the majority of abuse doesn’t happen in church and not in LDS families or at LDS activities if only because we are few percentagewise, so unfortunately not going to have much impact on the vast majority of cases.

The point I am making is not centered on the influence of the Church.  The Church is one of many moral voices that, as a "chorus," can make an cumulative impact at the individual level.  Proactively.  These voices can proactively/preemptively influence individuals in ways the State, broadly speaking, cannot.  The State can react, mostly via punitive measures or threats of punitive measures.  I suppose these measures can have some preclusive/deterrent effect on reducing child abuse, but not much.  We as a society already know that child abuse is bad, and that there are severe legal consequences for those caught at it, but it's happening a lot anyway.  

On 2/4/2024 at 1:42 AM, Calm said:

If your proactive solution is to convert the world to become members of our faith, great optimism, but does nothing to help the vast numbers of abuse cases that will happen prior to the Millennium.

That is not what I said.  here it is again:

Quote

The best "proactive" measures will not really involve the government, and will instead involve voices having moral authority that advocate moral frameworks and seek to influence members of society to voluntarily choose to abstain from harmful behaviors.  One such voice is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

There are many other such voices as well.  

I am advocating for a resurgence of religiosity generally, not just in regards to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  

On 2/4/2024 at 1:42 AM, Calm said:

Seriously, I see why you think this is a potentially valuable resource for lowering rates of child abuse in our greater communities given there is no evidence presented that having LDS troops present lowered the rates in the surrounding nonLDS troops, which is the type of data that would be relevant to this discussion imo.

You are misunderstanding my point.  The Church is one voice among many.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

So is this relevant to you inquiry ("Perhaps we could use counties that have a high percentage of LDS and see if there has been significant drops of child abuse in these countries...")?

No, because I am looking for change over time as LDS populations grow, assuming these populations are listening to moral voices.

Quote

The point I am making is not centered on the influence of the Church.  

Feel free to pick any moral voice that you can chart over time effect on the general or specific population..

Quote

  The State can react, mostly via punitive measures or threats of punitive measures.  I suppose these measures can have some preclusive/deterrent effect on reducing child abuse, but not much

However, it can be proactive and reduce abuse that way as is referred to in the Deseret News article I linked to above.

Quote

am advocating for a resurgence of religiosity generally, not just in regards to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  

And how are you going to accomplish that?

Edited February 5, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

No, because I am looking for change over time as LDS populations grow, assuming these populations are listening to moral voices.

Okay.  I was speaking more broadly.

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

The State can react, mostly via punitive measures or threats of punitive measures.  I suppose these measures can have some preclusive/deterrent effect on reducing child abuse, but not much.

However, it can be proactive and reduce abuse that way as is referred to in the Deseret News article I linked to above.

I assume you are referencing this article.

Quote

As child abuse reports went down significantly during the pandemic, they believe some pandemic-era supports and other factors may have protected some of the nation’s most vulnerable children. Two years into the pandemic, cases started to climb again, about the time that those supports were ending, they say.

In a commentary on a study of severe physical abuse, both just published in the journal JAMA Pediatrics, Dr. Kristine A. Campbell, of Primary Children’s Medical Center and the University of Utah, along with colleagues from Pennsylvania, called the pandemic a “natural experiment in social welfare policy.”
...
They wrote: “While a complete understanding of the patterns and severity of child abuse over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic will continue to evolve in the coming years, evidence for the anticipated shadow pandemic of child abuse,” including abusive head trauma, “has not emerged.”
...
The three doctors suggest in their commentary that the difference with COVID-19 arises from pandemic supports, “an array of unprecedented social welfare policies previously identified as possible child abuse prevention strategies, including paid family leave, basic income and child tax credits, extension of eligibility for government health insurance and protection from eviction and foreclosure.”

So the "policies" to be deployed "as possible child abuse prevention strategies" include:

• Paid family leave
• Basic income
• Child tax credits
• Extension of eligibility for government health insurance
• Protection of eviction
• Protection from foreclosure

I'd like to see evidence of causation for each of these, as opposed to correlation.  

I'm open to exploring paid family leave.

I could see all sorts of problems arising out of "basic income."

I am on board with child tax credits, though I don't see a causal link between credits and prevention of child abuse.

Our health insurance and healthcare programs are really messy.  And again, that whole "causal link" thing.

I think the last two (protection from eviction/foreclosure) are simply untenable as any long-term or permanent policy proposal.

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

am advocating for a resurgence of religiosity generally, not just in regards to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  

And how are you going to accomplish that?

I won't.  I can't.  I think individuals and communities need to come together to espouse these things.

Thanks,

-Smac