Have JWs solved 90% of the child abuse problems plaguing the rest of the world?

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

Rook! You and JWinsider need to get your head out of the sand! And get your FACTS straight.

Allen, It has become obvious that you are only on this topic to cause contentions, divisions, obfuscate, and create diversions. This does not mean that all the information you provide is false. But it appears that your overall intent is always to mislead and I think your contentiousness is designed to be part of your approach.

As to statistics, you should also look at http://www.invisiblechildren.org/2017/12/29/child-abuse-statistics-the-best-resources/

Of course they are looking for donations and may have therefore cherry-picked from exaggerated sources, but most of the numbers align with reasonable sources. These are just a few from the page:

1. 37% of American children are reported to Child Protective Services by their 18^th birthday (African American children are reported at 54%)
2. 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 6 boys will be sexually abused before they turn 18 years old.13 
3. 34% of people who sexually abuse a child are family members. 
4. 3% of girls were age 10 or younger at the time of their first rape/victimization, and 30% of girls were between the ages of 11 and 17. 
5. 96% of people who sexually abuse children are male, and 76.8% of people who sexually abuse children are adults. 
6. 325,000 children are at risk of becoming victims of commercial child sexual exploitation each year. 
7. The average age at which girls first become victims of prostitution is 12 to 14 years old, and the average age for boys is 11 to 13 years old. 
8. 80% of child fatalitiesinvolve at least one parent.
9. Estimated that between 50-60% of maltreatment fatalities are not recorded on death certificates.

• More than 90% of juvenile sexual abuse victims know their perpetrator.
• Child abuse crosses all socioeconomic and educational levels, religions, ethnic and cultural groups.

Terrible but reasonable statistics also appear here at http://victimsofcrime.org/media/reporting-on-child-sexual-abuse/child-sexual-abuse-statistics

---------beginning of quotations from site--------

• The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Children’s Bureau report Child Maltreatment 2010 found that 9.2% of victimized children were sexually assaulted (page 24).

Studies by David Finkelhor, Director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center, show that:

• 1 in 5 girls and 1 in 20 boys is a victim of child sexual abuse;
• Self-report studies show that 20% of adult females and 5-10% of adult males recall a childhood sexual assault or sexual abuse incident;
• During a one-year period in the U.S., 16% of youth ages 14 to 17 had been sexually victimized;
• Over the course of their lifetime, 28% of U.S. youth ages 14 to 17 had been sexually victimized;
• Children are most vulnerable to CSA between the ages of 7 and 13.

According to a 2003 National Institute of Justice report,

• 3 out of 4 adolescents who have been sexually assaulted were victimized by someone they knew well (page 5).

A Bureau of Justice Statistics report shows

• 1.6 % (sixteen out of one thousand) of children between the ages of 12-17 were victims of rape/sexual assault (page 18).

A study conducted in 1986 found that

• 63% of women who had suffered sexual abuse by a family member also reported a rape or attempted rape after the age of 14. Recent studies in 2000, 2002, and 2005 have all concluded similar results (page 8).
• Children who had an experience of rape or attempted rape in their adolescent years were 13.7 times more likely to experience rape or attempted rape in their first year of college (page 9).
• A child who is the victim of prolonged sexual abuse usually develops low self-esteem, a feeling of worthlessness and an abnormal or distorted view of sex. The child may become withdrawn and mistrustful of adults, and can become suicidal (page 1)
• Children who do not live with both parents as well as children living in homes marked by parental discord, divorce, or domestic violence, have a higher risk of being sexually abused (page 171).
• In the vast majority of cases where there is credible evidence that a child has been penetrated, only between 5 and 15% of those children will have genital injuries consistent with sexual abuse (page 2).

• Child sexual abuse is not solely restricted to physical contact; such abuse could include noncontact abuse, such as exposure, voyeurism, and child pornography (page 1).

According to the study published online and in the June print issue of the Journal of Adolescent Health.

• Compared to those with no history of sexual abuse, young males who were sexually abused were five times more likely to cause teen pregnancy, three times more likely to have multiple sexual partners and two times more likely to have unprotected sex,

------end of quotes from site-----

Note added by JWI: My apologies for blatant copying of the page. I began to reformat but left all the information as it was. Will remove if there is any complaint.

[JW Insider]

17 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

20 hours ago, JW Insider said:

It might be repeated out of a false pride or presumptuousness.

It is more likely to be repeated out of a desire to make a defence for the faith, which I have never imagined was a bad thing.

Defending the faith is never a bad thing. But it doesn't mean that it would be right, for example, to keep saying that we are the fastest growing religion when the statistics no longer support that idea. Yet this was once recommended from the platform as a good point to make in our door-to-door ministry.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

4 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

I don’t know where you keep getting, subpoena from ROOK! But STOP! LYING!

Once again, this is why JWinsider DEFENDS you, just so he can look good in AD1914?

There is a BIG difference between subpoena and summons. I already explained it to you, on the other thread, where you “failed” miserably with your perceived incorrect facts, and you still REFUSE to acknowledge it. You should NOT drink and post. Your incoherence is showing!

subpoena

or subpena

noun

1.

the usual writ for the summoning of witnesses or the submission of evidence, as records or documents, before a court or other deliberative body.

verb (used with object), subpoenaed, subpoenaing.

2.

to serve with a subpoena.

 

Allen:

 Do you think that secret documents held in sealed envelopes at Kingdom Halls and at National Bethel Branch Offices under lock and key, that no Elder not involved was ever supposed to see ... was given to the ARC because they nicely asked for them, without a subpoena?

 

A "subpoena" is the document they give to the one summoned UNDER PENALTY OF PUNISHMENT, to appear.

 

That is what the word means ... sub (under), and pena or poena (punishment). If Bro. Jackson did not appear, as ordered ... ( He tried to beg off from appearing, saying he was only in Australia to visit his sick Father...) or the documents were not produced, as ordered by national sovereign entities of competent jurisdiction ... it would have resulted in contempt of court charges, and FINE and/or IMPRISONMENT.

 

Would not  THAT have made headline news?  "Jehovah's Witness Governing Body Member imprisoned for ignoring Subpoena ......  Film at 11."

 

When a Network News Crew Film Truck with the big telescoping antenna with satellite dish on top pulls up in the Bethel parking lot ... you know you are going to have a bad day!

 

Latin sounds soOOoooo profound, doesn't it.

 

Here's one for you, that only translates roughly from Latin to English, and no other language.

 

In Latin: "Sempre Ubi Sub Ubi

 

In English: "Always wear under wear".

 

Here is another one .... "Accipite pill autem rufus, Allen, Accipite pill autem rufus."

 

 

 

 

This billboard was put up close to an Assembly Hall in July, 2015, at Belton, Texas.

THE BROTHERHOOD IN GENERAL IS NEVER TOLD WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON ... yet under your "scenario" this information is freely given to Australian Courts?

What are we?

Chopped Liver?

 

[JW Insider]

15 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

It is a simple proportion based upon straightforward facts, the simplest calculation of all, made possible because there were two groups proactive enough to keep records - the Witness organization and the Australian government itself.

It is far from a simple proportion based upon straightforward facts. It is a terribly sloppy calculation. You should look at it again. I won't get into all the potential problems that could bring the final number one way or the other, but I will point out some things that must have been missed.

First of all, you can find the argument over at: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-witness/TI5JLVKMB8LO0SE7C/arc-proves-that-jw-children-are-10-times-safer

I point to that because it might be the original source of the "study," although I can't be too sure. I will try to highlight everything from the original in blue text, and then mark my own inserted comments in red text:

Thanks to the ARC (Australian Royal Commission) we now have an apples to apples comparison with a pool size large enough to be significant.

According to Australian Institute of Family Studies [1], there were 320,169 notifications of child abuse (2014 - 2015). Further the studies show that of these 13% is sexual abuse which provides us with a number of 41,622 notifications of child abuse. Further the total population of Australia for 2015 is 23,968,973 [2].

This give us a ratio of 41,622 / 23,968,973.

No it doesn't. In fact, if you read the source material here, [listed at the end of this post] you will see that the figures were taken from 2014-2015, back in March 2017, and that, as of June 2017, the figures were updated for 2015-2016. The number 320,169 (2015) becomes 355,935 (2016) which you might expect would be better for the overall original argument anyway. But notice that these are multiple notifications about 42,457 children (96% investigations complete). Here's the relevant quote from the source material.

• In 2015-16, of the total number of notifications (355,935), 164,987 cases (involving 115,024 children) of child abuse were investigated or were in the process of being investigated. Of these investigations, 133,329 (96%) were finalised by 31 August 20163 and 60,989 cases were substantiated (AIHW, 2017). . . . The 60,989 substantiations recorded nationally involved 45,714 children, which was a 7.7% increase from the 42,457 children found to be harmed or at risk of harm from abuse and/or neglect in 2014-15 (AIHW, 2016).

Then we still need to look at how many of these 45,714 children were believed to have been abused sexually. The 13% figure in 2015 is closer to 12.2% in 2016, and the final number of children was determined to be 5,559 as you can see in the chart.  

Table 3: Primary substantiated harm types in Australian states and territories, 2015-16

Harm type	NSW	Vic.	Qld	WA a	SA	Tas.	ACT	NT b	Australia
Emotional abuse	5,961	9.133	2,123	1,558	414	376	225	549	20,339
Neglect	5,677	583	2,217	1,168	691	255	136	676	11,403
Physical abuse	2,776	2,975	1.014	750	383	104	64	295	8,361
Sexual abuse	2,868	1,463	267	696	152	35	24	54	5,559
Not stated	0	0	0	26	1	25	0	0	52
Total	17,282	14,154	5,621	4,198	1,641	795	449	1,574	45,714

This means that the ratio is not really 41,622 / 23,968,973 but should be much closer to 5559 / 23,968,973 = 0.02%

As was reported to the ARC [3][4], since August 2015 - Janurary 2017 the service desk received 17 reports of child abuse. Nine were historical cases and none involved an elder. They all occurred in a familial setting. Of the 17, 2 refused to report as they were adult survivors and was their right not to report. That is a period of 17 months. Therfore the rate is 1 per month.

The total number of witnesses (publishers) in Australia is 67,418 [5].

This give us a ratio of 12 / 67,418 per year.

Unfortunately, the reference for [3] is missing in topix, but reference [4] appears to be the place where the original "study" got the number "17" from. (See page 13, paragraph 34.) It's possible that these run from August 2015 to January 2017, but the context of the entire section suggests that it was part of a response from Watchtower Australia dated much closer to August 1, 2016, which included the August 1, 2016 Watchtower letter to all Bodies of Elders, new guidelines submitted in "Child Protection Guidelines for Branch Office Service Desks," also dated August 1, 2016, (page 8, paragraph 21). In fact, even the beginning date of August 2015 might not be correct. Of course, it is also dangerous to work from such a small sample even if it's over a 12 to 17 month period, especially if it is a time of unprecedented scrutiny.

But we will give the "study" the benefit of the doubt, here, and say that these 17 cases represent only one case per month during the period, and that these are "predictive" of what can be expected, even without a year-to-year comparison as was done in the Australian CPS source material. If this is so, it gives us a ratio, as stated above of 12/ 67,418 per year which is:

12/67,418= 0.02%

Notice that this is the same as the general population of Australia noted above, not 10 times better.

• 5,559 / 23,968,973 = 0.0002
• 12 / 67,418 = 0.0002

References...

[1] https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/child-a...
[2] http://www.worldometers.info/world-population...

[4] http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/d...

 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

I LOVE IT when somebody else does the heavy lifting ... like taking a Grand Piano up a three floor spiral staircase ... and gets it RIGHT!

I did that with a refrigerator when I was a young man ... but worrying statistics and data until they yield TRUTH ... is HARDER.

That's a LOT of work JW Insider, and I wish I could write you an appropriate check that would not bounce.

 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

You should NOT drink and post. Your incoherence is showing!

The thing about reading your posts, Allen .... is in the morning .... I will be sober ....  and you will still have your posts!

( Apologies to Winston Churchill ...)

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

Allen:

You know, they say that The English (and that would include Australians) and the Americans are separated by a common language.

such a ALU-minum in American English, and Alu-MIN-ium, in the King's English.  Or GRAY in American, and GREY, in Englandish.

From your link: "Just because you see the word “subpoena” over the word “summons” DOESN’T give it the SAME weight in POWER, in, legal context."

Of course not!

But ignore either one at your peril of wallet and/or freedom.

That is where the "rubber meets the road.

If hypothetically I pointed my gun at YOU and wiggled it and nodded to my left, chances are you would want to move to my left.

That would be to YOUR right.

In THAT case, it would be REAL important!

One of the amazing things about your posts Allen, is what you pick out and isolate that's important to you mind, leaving the herd of Elephants in the room ignored.

 

[JW Insider]

37 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

But overall! Where does the Watchtower fall in the scheme of things under ALL! those Statistics?

Finally, you are back on track with this question. For me, the answer is that I don't know.

I've said before that I think Witnesses fare better than the general population in all categories of child sexual abuse, but I don't know by how much. I think Witnesses fare much, much better in some categories of child sexual abuse. If I had to guess, I'd say Witnesses are generally two or three times as safe as the rest of the population, whether or not I have found any statistics to bear this out very well.

My opinion is that the Watchtower's track record is much better now, especially in the last year or two, but that it still has a couple of necessary adjustments to align its procedures with the spirit of justice, rather than try to dig in its heels on a specific letter of the law. My opinion is that procedure has been poor in the past, and was once very slow to improve, but is still not as bad as several other churches and institutions.

Certain men in leadership positions have been protected, some inadvertently, through a policy that is partly Biblical, but not consistent with the way we handle some other sins. (Circumstantial evidence has been OK for adultery, for example.) It's probably because this is an easy crime/sin to dismiss as not provable in many cases. And it's something we really hope isn't true, and we really hope it doesn't have to cause a scandal in the congregation and community. And we hate to see something that might have been handled within the congregation to be handed over to Caesar, whom we have several reasons not to always trust.

In the last two weeks, I finally asked my uncle, a former and now-substitute circuit overseer, his opinion on the improvements in this area. He agreed that in a judicial setting, there is always a possibility that we would judge a case wrongly, in favor of the claim of either party, and none of us would want to make decisions with such far-reaching effects on people's lives. There is a subliminal wish to avoid it if possible. So, for years, brothers who obviously had a problem in this regard, even if they admitted some level of "wrongdoing," were typically given strong counsel, told to stay away from situations where such a problem could occur again, and every effort was made within reason to keep the police and community out of it. This was often the same wish of the parents of an abused child, and this wish to avoid scandal was encouraged, sometimes overtly. You probably remember a line in the earliest "Flock" books where elders could get a "free pass" on certain types of sin, and these sins were never specified. This came out of a time when certain "embarrassing" or "scandalous" sins would have a long-term effect on the ability of the elder to be respected, so the elder could take his "slap on the wrist" from the rest of the elder body and he would come out of it unscathed as to his reputation in the congregation. I knew of a situation where this principle was invoked for a wife-beating case. But, my uncle pointed out that it is obvious that it could apply to a wide range of sins or crimes that were thought to be in the same category. (I think he assumed I knew what he meant, but he didn't make this clear enough.) He said that he was humbled by the change in the procedure of contacting the civil authorities. His explanation was ironic. He said that "it finally puts the fear of God in these pedophiles."

 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

I love irony !

14 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

He said that he was humbled by the change in the procedure of contacting the civil authorities. His explanation was ironic. He said that "it finally puts the fear of God in these pedophiles."

otherwise that would be an upvote.

Hey! that quote is an "Elephant" AllenSmith could chew on !

[Anna]

32 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

He said that "it ( contacting the civil authorities) finally puts the fear of God in these pedophiles."

Nothing against your uncle, but I have noticed quite frequently friends making illogical and contradictory remarks such as this. I wonder if upon reflection they realize that what they've just said makes no sense at all, but just leave it at that. I am guilty of this too by the way. Or are they genuinely so blinkered? Or is it just a saying. No need to answer. This is merely a rhetorical question 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

It's IRONY!

You either get it ... or you don't.

[Anna]

I have not been contributing much lately as I am away in Europe visiting family and...well....to busy having fun, lol, but I thought I would just post this true life story from the 80's I just found about. I was talking to a sister (who hasn't been going to meetings for years) the other day. Somehow the conversation turned to this one prominent elder (now deceased) we both knew when we were in the same congregation. I told her that years ago I had heard that there was some notoriety surrounding his name, this was while I was still in his congregation, but that I hadn't paid much attention to it at the time. She revealed to me that he had touched her on several occasions while having a Bible study with her. She was 14. She said she never said anything to anyone until this particular elder groped a sister's breast while she was feeding her baby, at a convention of all places. The sister's father created an almighty upheaval (basically he told everyone what this elder had done to his daughter and said he would kill him) and soon others came forward. When my friend found out about it,  she also felt safe to come forward too. She then told me that this elder was summoned to a judicial committee by the CO. The result was that he was taken off as elder BUT remained a regular pioneer. She said that the elder's best buddy was on the committee......She then told me that she slept with the lights on for weeks because she was scared he would "get her" for ratting on him....

Now this sister has no desire to cause any trouble and has no ill feelings towards the witnesses. But reading between the lines this experience contributed to her falling away.

My mom also knew this elder, as she was also in his congregation. I had remembered she had said something about him at the time, so I asked her about it now. She said that she knew about the "breast groping" and she also said that one time when he was visiting our house, he had tried to justify male sexual behavior by saying that if she (my mom) lay down on the couch naked, he would not be able to resist her. My mom told him he was a creep and sent him packing.

Now I was just imagining that had this happened in America, and had this sister become bitter and years later decided to file a lawsuit (assuming the elder wasn't dead) a case may have been opened and who knows what else might have come to light. What I mean by that is what if he had molested other kids later? And here we would have a classic case of negligence by an elder body.....