Anna

Police should investigate and where allegations of criminal activity are found to have substance, then courts should be involved in prosecution. Is that not happening?

Think how peaceful the Earth would be if only men and dogs lived forever .....

Really? Now ye have peeked my interest! Where is it, again?

We humans can only judge what we see or hear about. Jehovah judges the heart.

I once heard a talk about this very thing, many years ago....what on earth does it mean? The brother gave some good insight on it that really helped shed some light on Jesus words. His explanation was that an individual who thinks or looks at another long enough to have sexual desires for that person....usually at some point acts it out. If one is in the habit of [constantly] having sexual fantasies and or  Sexual desires he/she has a high probability of submitting to it.
The seed of sin has already been planted (looking, longing, fantasizing) within the mind and it is fertilized each time the person in question engages in such thoughts or habits.  Once the root grows deep in the heart....there will be nothing to hold you back. You will act.
So yes....the person has technically ALREADY SINNED  (Premeditation) before the act itself was ever committed. 

Jay .... you just made "The List".

Very true. But what I find the problem is, is when someone no longer wishes to be a Witness after they have been dfd and after they are no longer practicing what they've been dfd for, so of course there is no chance of them being reinstated, which means they will be shunned forever with all it's implications (loved ones will not talk to them ever again)....

Ask any parent whose child (adult or otherwise) is disfellowshipped.

This would not be the first time in Canada.  In 2012 Vicky Boer filed a lawsuit against the elders of her cong.and the WT which was a fiasco and ended badly for her. She ended up owing her lawyers, and is probably still paying them now.

OOOh....Look what a Google search on heirogrifics reveals......................   @James Thomas Rook Jr.

Very true. But we all know what would happen if it was found out you went on vacation with your dfd daughter or son. (Not yours literally of course!) It's one of these frustrating hard to pin down situations. There is a supreme court case going on in Canada right now where the dfd ex- brother is suing. But that's not what I wanted to say, but what is interesting is that the WT appealing the case mentions this in defense: "Disfellowshipping is not “a mandatory church edict” that removes family love. Family members decide according to their conscience the extent to which they will continue family discourse".  Page 9, par 31
How can that be reconciled with what really happens?
To illustrate:  If it was a conscience matter, then if someones conscience said it was ok for them to spend time with their disfellowshipped relative, perhaps even go on vacation with them, then it shouldn't be a problem, and no one should judge that decision, just like if someone decided their conscience allowed them to take minor blood fractions. For that reason, because minor blood fractions really ARE a conscience matter, we don’t have articles giving us advice on how to avoid them, and videos showing us how someone successfully refused them etc. like we do with disfellowshipping.
So really, all the articles and videos are “biasing” us to shun, rather than truly leaving it up to our conscience. I am not saying this is right or wrong, I am just pointing out  that stating that it is a conscience matter is not correct, (actually it is dishonest) and could be used against us if proved.
Here is the case, but I know you probably won't bother to read it, and I don't blame you, you will just have to trust me that the quote I posted is really there
http://www.scc-csc.ca/WebDocuments-DocumentsWeb/37273/FM010_Appellant_Judicial-Committee-of-the-Highwood-Congregation-of-Jehovah's-Witnesses.pdf
 
 
 

Very true. But what I find the problem is, is when someone no longer wishes to be a Witness after they have been dfd and after they are no longer practicing what they've been dfd for, so of course there is no chance of them being reinstated, which means they will be shunned forever with all it's implications (loved ones will not talk to them ever again)....

Ask any parent whose child (adult or otherwise) is disfellowshipped.

Of course it doesn't apply to the one whose association has ended. They can do what they like obviously since they are no longer bound by the rules of the congregation.
But rephrase it to say "....ask yourself these questions if you are an active member of Jehovah's Witnesses" and see whether the prospect of shunning has an impact on your answers.
 

No. I like to be fair, so I hope my perception was fair too. I generally try not to defend something that is obviously wrong or indefensible.

No. I like to be fair, so I hope my perception was fair too. I generally try not to defend something that is obviously wrong or indefensible.

I tried to figure out what the emotional guy was saying about a $66 million lawsuit and besides apostate websites that make it sound as if it's a done deal I found some serious news reporting. I can't find anything more up to date besides that though
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-court-asked-to-approve-sexual-abuse-class-action-lawsuit-against-jehovah-s-witnesses-1.4293138
 
 
 

Hmmm. Not only what you say, but also this description of the plaintiff:
"He contended his wife was a messy housekeeper and that caused his angry explosions of verbal abuse."
Today one does not pass Go nor collect $200 after such an incident. Abuse is a big no-no. With but minimal fabrication, one can imagine his favorite Elvis song: "Get out in that kitchen and rattle those pots and pans!"
 

We're back to that problem again of trying to use the idea of conscience in a court of law as an obfuscation. You are right that very few Witnesses leave anything up to conscience. It's "spiritual" peer pressure to conform, where not conforming can result in anything from being looked down upon by peers, or a loss of privileges all the way up to being disfellowshipped yourself. I don't have a good solution, but I have seen the type of shunning of young family members that just seems childish on the part of the supposedly mature Witnesses who have to conform to the rule. 
I note that we no longer claim in court that corporeal punishment of minors is acceptable, and yet it obviously has Biblical precedent. I wonder if there's a way we would begin to conform to more modern norms of conduct, in obedience to the superior authorities in shunning cases, too.

If it is one of those frustratingly hard to pin down situations, there is no reason not to pin it down your way, whatever you decide that is.
Among the reasons we are asked to respect the decisions of a judicial committee is that they have had opportunity to examine everything relevant and will know the situation better than us. In the case of a close family member, this is rarely true. Thus:
One factor a family member might know of is the one you suggested - a person who no longer practices anything wrong but declines to rejoin the congregation. Reasonably, that could have a bearing on one's conscience. 
 
Take the organization at their word. Go on vacation with them if your conscience permits it, perhaps because of the situation already described. If it raises eyebrows, and you wish to explain, do so. At worst there is some peer pressure. Perhaps one may not be considered 'an example' and as such, may lose or not be considered for privileges. So be it. They are voluntary things anyway. If they disappear over such a thing, they disappear. It is a choice you can make.
Some of the eyebrow-raising, in the above scenario of one who desists wrongdoing but does not wish to return, will have to do with separateness as much as prior congregation discipline. Separateness was a real concept in Hebrew times - there is no reason to think it is less so in modern times.  Our people are taught the Bible principle that separateness is a good thing - remain separate from the world lest its influence gradually seep back into us, and through us, the congregation. There is no reason for the GB to underplay that concept just because it is not popular. A person today might think it narrow-minded or judgemental, but there is no way it is not scriptural. 
One might get experience pressure (and who is to say that is such a horrible thing? - people have been meddling in each other's affairs since the beginning of time), but the point is, there is no actual sanction over it. Do it if you want to.
One reason no one would be judged over yes/no on fractions is that they would not know about it. I know of no one else's stand on fractions other than my own and my wife's. It is the same with your conduct with a df'd family member. Discretion helps the medicine go down. 
Admittedly, the tone of theocratic counsel is toward firmness. It is: 'Consider that the counsel of df ones applies to a relative, unless you can think of why it wouldn't' - instead of the other way around. Nonetheless, based upon factors that only a family member would know, one might adhere to avoiding association with a df'd relative to a lesser extent than a non-related congregation member.

Very true. But we all know what would happen if it was found out you went on vacation with your dfd daughter or son. (Not yours literally of course!) It's one of these frustrating hard to pin down situations. There is a supreme court case going on in Canada right now where the dfd ex- brother is suing. But that's not what I wanted to say, but what is interesting is that the WT appealing the case mentions this in defense: "Disfellowshipping is not “a mandatory church edict” that removes family love. Family members decide according to their conscience the extent to which they will continue family discourse".  Page 9, par 31
How can that be reconciled with what really happens?
To illustrate:  If it was a conscience matter, then if someones conscience said it was ok for them to spend time with their disfellowshipped relative, perhaps even go on vacation with them, then it shouldn't be a problem, and no one should judge that decision, just like if someone decided their conscience allowed them to take minor blood fractions. For that reason, because minor blood fractions really ARE a conscience matter, we don’t have articles giving us advice on how to avoid them, and videos showing us how someone successfully refused them etc. like we do with disfellowshipping.
So really, all the articles and videos are “biasing” us to shun, rather than truly leaving it up to our conscience. I am not saying this is right or wrong, I am just pointing out  that stating that it is a conscience matter is not correct, (actually it is dishonest) and could be used against us if proved.
Here is the case, but I know you probably won't bother to read it, and I don't blame you, you will just have to trust me that the quote I posted is really there
http://www.scc-csc.ca/WebDocuments-DocumentsWeb/37273/FM010_Appellant_Judicial-Committee-of-the-Highwood-Congregation-of-Jehovah's-Witnesses.pdf
 
 
 

Ask any parent whose child (adult or otherwise) is disfellowshipped.

Very true. But we all know what would happen if it was found out you went on vacation with your dfd daughter or son. (Not yours literally of course!) It's one of these frustrating hard to pin down situations. There is a supreme court case going on in Canada right now where the dfd ex- brother is suing. But that's not what I wanted to say, but what is interesting is that the WT appealing the case mentions this in defense: "Disfellowshipping is not “a mandatory church edict” that removes family love. Family members decide according to their conscience the extent to which they will continue family discourse".  Page 9, par 31
How can that be reconciled with what really happens?
To illustrate:  If it was a conscience matter, then if someones conscience said it was ok for them to spend time with their disfellowshipped relative, perhaps even go on vacation with them, then it shouldn't be a problem, and no one should judge that decision, just like if someone decided their conscience allowed them to take minor blood fractions. For that reason, because minor blood fractions really ARE a conscience matter, we don’t have articles giving us advice on how to avoid them, and videos showing us how someone successfully refused them etc. like we do with disfellowshipping.
So really, all the articles and videos are “biasing” us to shun, rather than truly leaving it up to our conscience. I am not saying this is right or wrong, I am just pointing out  that stating that it is a conscience matter is not correct, (actually it is dishonest) and could be used against us if proved.
Here is the case, but I know you probably won't bother to read it, and I don't blame you, you will just have to trust me that the quote I posted is really there
http://www.scc-csc.ca/WebDocuments-DocumentsWeb/37273/FM010_Appellant_Judicial-Committee-of-the-Highwood-Congregation-of-Jehovah's-Witnesses.pdf
 
 
 

Very true. But what I find the problem is, is when someone no longer wishes to be a Witness after they have been dfd and after they are no longer practicing what they've been dfd for, so of course there is no chance of them being reinstated, which means they will be shunned forever with all it's implications (loved ones will not talk to them ever again)....

Ask any parent whose child (adult or otherwise) is disfellowshipped.