Submitted by littleblackcar t3_1158qrr in Washington
Comments
F_n_o_r_d t1_j90tfz6 wrote
What naive individual downvotes this đŻ true statement!?!
zer05tar t1_j91cvt6 wrote
What law could you pass that criminals would follow?
[deleted] t1_j91dv0l wrote
[deleted]
4bethany t1_j91onwh wrote
No clergy confession should be more protected than the rights of an abused child. To say otherwise is ignorant and egregious. The Mormon church is going through a lawsuit because for six years the Mormon clergy knew that a man was raping his two young daughters, but never reported it. Protecting the confession rights of criminals over the safety of children is the definition of evil from these so called religions.
FalseAnimal t1_j91soql wrote
With the Mormon practice of the elders having one on one sessions with children where they're "interviewed" about sexual matters, I bet there is a "the call is coming from inside the house!" type situation as well.
cegr76 t1_j91t55x wrote
Agree. FWIW, many denominations require this of their clergy already. Independent, non denominational churches may be different.
Ishkabibal t1_j91u27d wrote
Continuing with this 2nd grade analysis, why have any laws at all?
airborngrmp t1_j920yx9 wrote
The criminals aren't the problem, it's these pesky laws that not everyone will follow!
/r/iamverysmart
bedlog t1_j92d8sn wrote
probably a priest or sadder to write Boy Scout troop leader
jslayerjeep t1_j92jzut wrote
"Child abuse" can of course be a horrible thing.
Who doesn't want well for the kids!
On flip side, I do not trust the government to define child abuse well. This is probably my biggest issue with this.
I generally hate compelled speech.
I generally hate forced tattling.
They represent a society that reminds me of Nazi Germany.
As I said, I do not trust the government to define child abuse well. I wouldn't want to live in a society that is set up to punish people for saying things against their own best judgement.
Compelled speech, and forced tattling, is not a society I would want my kids to grow up in.
iforgotwhat8wasfor t1_j932tby wrote
afishda t1_j936vc2 wrote
Here comes the catholic lobbyists to defend child predators, how you can remain in the church and stand by this behavior is beyond me.
Has a very cult feeling!
[deleted] t1_j938ihz wrote
[removed]
ZookeepergameSharp51 t1_j93jwzi wrote
The Catholic Church is disgusting
reroboto t1_j93sohq wrote
The lowest of the low abuse children and animals. What a screwed up world when we have to mandate trying to stop it. Edit to clarify: Reporting it should be a universal standard
Lch207560 t1_j94cjkj wrote
Never gonna happen. The clergy is far too powerful in government to allow it
MyLittlePIMO t1_j956n3y wrote
Also, doctors and teachers and therapists already are mandatory reporters with the same standards.
This isnât remotely unreasonable or a high burden.
Also, Texas and West Virginia and there other states already make clergy mandatory reporters with no exceptions and it has worked out perfectly fine. Literally the only argument Iâve heard against this is slippery slope nonsense that hasnât played out anywhere itâs been implemented.
This is a no brainer. Every politician who opposes it should be figuratively beaten over the head as a pedophile protector when they run for re election. Jim Walshâs rant against this bill should literally be played straight as an attack ad by whoever runs against him.
MyLittlePIMO t1_j956pcs wrote
Also, doctors and teachers and therapists already are mandatory reporters with the same standards.
This isnât remotely unreasonable or a high burden.
MyLittlePIMO t1_j956sle wrote
The point is that a court should be able to order a clergy to testify if he knows information relevant to the case.
MyLittlePIMO t1_j956xdc wrote
Donât be a doomer.
Texas and West Virginia both passed clergy mandatory reporting with no exceptions.
And itâs worked out fine.
If Texas can do it, Washington can. Donât let congressmen like Jim Walsh and Tom Dent off the hook for opposing this.
MyLittlePIMO t1_j9573gg wrote
This makes no sense. You hate compelled speech?
Are you against courts? Courts can subpoena people to share what they know. Except clergy currently under the current law.
Requiring people to report crimes is perfectly reasonable. If you subscribe to some kind of ideology that says itâs not, then you are completely disconnected from evidence based policy.
[deleted] t1_j978qjr wrote
[deleted]
Ponsugator t1_j97e7bl wrote
Theyâre referring to the priests to report abuse, not criminals to self report
Ponsugator t1_j97ekmu wrote
Right now clergy feel like they canât report, if they can then clergy have the power to protect children. There is an Arizona case where a man sexually abused his two children for seven years, and the bishop felt he couldnât report it and it kept going. If he would have been able to report, then these two little girls lives could have been saved
[deleted] t1_j98ze2d wrote
[deleted]
MyLittlePIMO t1_j98zikg wrote
You might not be fully understanding the law. It only applies to child sex abuse.
Not child abuse in general.
Thereâs a pretty clear line when it comes to sexual abuse of a child.
jslayerjeep t1_j9hnn80 wrote
I think I hear you, and you're right, this only applying to child sex abuse does make a difference to me.
MyLittlePIMO t1_j9hpfy8 wrote
I think we can understand each other here :) yeah, if this were about child abuse only, I could see a slippery slope argument. Is spanking abuse? Is grounding your kid very strictly abuse? Eye of the beholder.
But child sex abuse is so far over the line that itâs a lot easier. If youâre debating about whether something counts as sexual abuse of a child, something has gone horrible wrong đ”âđ«
And, Iâd also point out âmandatory reportingâ does not equal conviction. It just lets the police have it on the record. If they canât prove it they wonât press charges - but itâs incredibly helpful to store that info in the record (that the clergy was aware and can be called to testify later).
I personally know a case where the clergy knew a man had raped his children- a panel of multiple clergy had investigated and questioned him and confessed - but he got off because it was his word vs the motherâs, and a toddler struggles to express being raped in court.
The police either didnât know they could have gone to the clergy, or didnât have the legal power to question them, due to the current state of WA law.
They at least charged the guy and he plea dealed to a lesser charge of regular child abuse- good for him (no sex offender listing), ok for the prosecutor (they werenât sure they could get a conviction on only the very traumatized motherâs word), and bad for the community (a known child rapist is walking around free without being listed anywhere).
The clergy have a confession in writing Iâm fairly sure but the police couldnât get to it.
I know these kids and the clergy involved personally and itâs a big part of why Iâm an adamant supporter of this law.
jslayerjeep t1_j9mfv6n wrote
Yes slippery slope is part of my concern. You said that well.
And yes no one wants to hear a story like that.
bedlog t1_j90b9gq wrote
so the fox will be guarding the chickens after all