Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:25 PM
alp227 (29,653 posts)
Boy Scouts claim kids safer with them than at home
The Boy Scouts of America released a study Wednesday that claims children were safer from sex abuse in the Scouts than when at home or school.
The report was prepared by a psychiatric expert hired by the Scouts to review so-called "perversion files" kept by the organization from 1970 to 1991.
A newspaper review of the files published last week said they showed scouting officials "failed to report hundreds of alleged child molesters to police and often hid the allegations from parents and the public."
In response, the Boy Scouts released what it said is an "independent review" by a University of Virginia psychiatry professor Wednesday, ahead of the "increased media attention" it expects with the release of more files.
Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/26/us/boy-scouts-sex-abuse/index.html
15 replies, 3581 views
Boy Scouts claim kids safer with them than at home (Original post)
|Shitty Mitty||Sep 2012||#1|
Response to alp227 (Original post)
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:57 PM
Shitty Mitty (138 posts)
1. Until they drop the homophobia and out-dated sexist crap, fuck 'em
I'd dump my son in a pen full of gorillas before I leave him with the boy scouts, if I had one. At least the gorillas wouldn't fill his head full of 1950s horseshit.
Response to alp227 (Original post)
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:32 PM
Gore1FL (15,078 posts)
8. That's probably statistically accurate.
Boy Scouts go to great lengths to protect the youth. They don't succeed 100% of the time. I suspect because of their efforts, the results would naturally play out that way.
The wording is more than a little awkward. They could have stated the results much better.
After reading many posts on this thread, I think it is important to remind people to separate an awesome program, with good youth-protection, from a few fuck-monkeys in Texas who set discriminatory policies that most choose to ignore. When you get right down to it, Scouting teaches a lot of liberal values.
It would be like judging all of the United States by George W. Bush to suggest the Scouting program is inherently evil because of a small group of people who are largely ignored.
I spent time in the program as a youth and as an adult. I've seen at least a couple of homosexual Scouts earn Eagle. My Wood Badge course had a lesbian in attendance. By the way, I'm an atheist. The subject doesn't really come up. No one challenged me about my religion. No one challenged my friend on her sexuality. It's not discussed between the adults. It's certainly not discussed with kids. It's simply not part of the program.
The way to make Boy Scouts good again is for progressives to get involved and take it back from the people who are. Each time a reasonable person is driven away, the extremists win.
Let's all avoid the hyperbole of suggesting that the organization is institutionalized child-abuse because of policies that most people ignore. The ones that do care probably would find a way to do so anyway using their chartered organization (such as a fundamentalist church) for cover.
Brotherhood Member of the Order of the Arrow
Adult Leader Training Staff
Dad of an Eagle Scout
Response to Gore1FL (Reply #8)
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 10:45 AM
happyslug (14,779 posts)
9. I use to do CYS work, and people do NOT understand how much of this occurs
Since at least the 1930s, CYS hearings in all states have been NOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC i,e "Secret", and given most such "incidents" involve children, the trends has been NOT to report such hearings.
The worse part is that most such "incidents" are between older males (Which can include not only adults but teenagers) and children in the same families. In many cases the children are dependent on the adult male who is the prepetrator for financial support. i.e Father is committing the acts against his own children, who are also dependent on him for housing, clothing and food.
Given that situation, what do you do as a Judge? Lets look at the options:
1. Recommend Criminal Charges for the father, he would be convicted and sentence to jail. The Father will thus have three meals a day and a place to live (i.e. Prison) and clothing. What about the Child/Victim? The Victim will probably lose his or her home, for without the income of the Father, the child and the child's mother can NOT afford to stay in the home. The Father's side of the family will blame the child for the Father being in Jail, so they will NOT want to support the Child. Thus you have a good chance that the child/victim will be without housing, food and clothing, while the perpetrator will have all three provided by the state.
There is an old rule of law, the punishment of the perpetrator should cause more harm to the perpetrator then the victim. Thus the courts are reluctant to jail such perpetrators (Remember over 90% of such cases involve in family members), the courts are much more willing to jail non-family abusers but then you have equal protections issues, i.e. why do you punish one person but not another for the same crime, when the only difference is one is a family member of the victim and the other is not).
2. Separate the child/victim from the perpetrator but leaving the perpetrator outside of jail so he or she can find work and pay child support. This is the option most often selected by Judges and prosecutors for it does NOT punish the victim more then the perpetrator, but then it becomes a simple case of child support and equal protection of the law says the amount the father (who is more often the perpetrator then the mother) has to pay is the same as any other father. The only addition "punishment" is contact between the perpetrator and victim is minimized.
Do to the above two bad choices and given that CYS hearings are closed to the public, the only cases people hear of are when a non-family member is the perpetrator. This was the problem with the incidents involving the day care centers, the Catholic Church and now the Boy Scouts. If you followed the trend, it started with the Public Schools in the late 1970s and early 1980s, but the Public Schools could use Sovereign Immunity and quashed any money claim against them for the acts of their teachers. For that reasons lawyers are reluctant to takes cases against Public Schools, the lawyer can get a Judgement against the teacher, but not the school and it is the school that has the access to money to pay a judgement. Daycare centers, the Catholic Church and now the Boy Scouts are all "Private" organizations and thus can NOT rely on Sovereign Immunity to prevent any judgments against themselves. Thus you hear of actions and judgments against the Catholic Church and other organizations with assets for lawyers do NOT bring actions unless they can be paid, and they get paid from Judgments, when the Judgement is paid by the defendant. In cases involving individual teachers, priests etc, this is rarely done for such individuals rarely has the income or assets to pay such a judgement, but the organization they belong to can, thus the Catholic Church and now the Boy Scouts are being sued for the lawyers know they have the assets to pay a judgement, the actual perpetrators rarely does.
The primary reason it is hard to collect on a Judgement on an individual. Most people with assets are married (people date, marry then buy a house). Given that situation, most judgments against individuals are hard to collect, for most, if not all of their property, they own as joint owners with their spouse, and thus unless you can get a judgement against BOTH spouses, it is almost impossible to force payment of the Judgement (and it is hard to get a Judgement against both spouses in this type of case, for in most cases the spouse does NOT know what the other spouse is doing and thus NOT liable, i.e. you can not be liable for something you had no control or knowledge of). In those states that permit attachments of wages for such judgments, any children of the perpetrator tends to have a superior claim to any wage attachment. Thus it is next to impossible to collect FROM THE ACTUAL PERPETRATOR.
For this reason, lawyers only name the perpetrators as defendants and get a judgement against them as part of a action where they expect the judgement to be paid by their organization. Without a judgement saying the perpetrator did the act, the Court can NOT find the organization they were employees or members of did not do adequate supervision. Thus in most cases the actual perpetrators are technical defendants, the real defendant (and the "persons" everyone is looking for to pay the judgement) is the the organization that the perpetrator belong to or was an employee of.
I bring all of the above up to show why we have had a "huge" increase in such incidents over the last 30 years. The number of incidents have NOT gone up, but starting in the 1980s lawyers found that they could sue and collect judgments against employers of perpetrators (Juries and Judges would not award such damages in previous decades, holding only the actual perpetrator liable and no one wanted such judgments given they are almost impossible to collect on).
At that same time, people, prior to the 1930s, would know such incidents occurred for CYS courts were open to the public, thus it was reported and thus known to most people. With the movement to make CYS courts NOT open to the public, PUBLIC reports of such incidents dropped, thus people forgot how common such incidents are. The next time most people read about such incidents is when some Public Schools were brought up on such cases in the 1970s, but then those cases quickly died do to lack of judgments against the actual schools. Lawyer, who want to be PAID for their work, shifted to the Day Care center (which tended NOT to have assets, so that move quickly died) then to the Catholic Church, where is boomed for the Catholic Church had assets to pay judgments.
The Catholic Church is slowly working its way out of the mess it found itself in, adopting rules it should have had in place but did not (Many had been in place prior to the 1960s, but under the "spirit" of Vatican II, most were removed in the drive to modernize the church. please note it was NOT Vatican II that did the harm, but what Bishops did in addition to Vatican II that caused the harm, changes without thinking of why the rules were in place in the first place). The cases you hear now are mostly pre-1995 cases that are working through the courts and due to the adoption of these new (and old) rules it is hard to find a case involving someone AFTER 1995, and thus lawyers are looking elsewhere such as the Boy Scouts and other organizations that deal with youths.
Thus, if you are an organization that deals with youths, you should have rules on how to handle such reports AND FOLLOW THOSE RULES (the failure to follow they own rules is one of the reason the Catholic Church has had so many cases brought against them). When dealing with children, other children has to be present (as in a school room) or another adult. All reports should be investigated by someone outside the local group (in the case of the Catholic Church by the Diocese, not the parish) which includes contact with the parents and victim. If a rule was violated, even if it does not show actual intent to violate the rule, the person who broke the rule should be disciplined (another problem with the Catholic Church prior to 1995, they wanted evidence of actual abuse, not a violation of some rule) AND repeated reports from different sources should be viewed as collaboration of each report not as separate incidents (Another problem the Catholic Church had, it had moved its priests around, and when reports recurred did NOT view them as collaboration of the previous series of report that lead to the transfer). The Boy Scouts has to accept the fact it has pedophiles among its ranks. The Catholic Church has NEVER been held liable for having pedophiles among its ranks, only in not have a system to make sure they did NOT harm anyone AND for not making sure when it came to their attention that someone was a pedophile, to keep that person away from potential victims. Other youth organization should have similar rules for these people exist in our society and will look for weaknesses in any control system so they can get their victims. Thus the control system must be set up to make sure the perpetrators can not get away with their crimes.
Response to happyslug (Reply #9)
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 10:55 AM
shrike (3,695 posts)
10. As an ex-police reporter
I'd have to say that every single child abuse report I reviewed involved a relative.
Thank you so much for an EXCELLENT summary. I did not know some of those details regarding the RC church; re, Vatican II.
Response to shrike (Reply #10)
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 02:05 PM
happyslug (14,779 posts)
12. One of the rules involved being in the priest's bedroom
The rule was that if a Priest had someone in his bedroom (or other private part of the parish house) the punishment was the same as if he (we are talking the Catholic Church, i.e no female Priests) had sex with that person. These were two DIFFERENT "Crimes" within the parish, but the Bishop had to punish any offender of either (sex OR being in the private parts of the Parish house). The reason for this was simple, it was easy to show the victim had been in the Private parts, but having the victim identified how the rooms were and what was in the rooms. On the other hand how do you prove someone had sex (provided no one is pregnant)? It was a case of we can prove X, but not Y, but X occurs when Y occurs, thus we will inform everyone that Y will be punished the same a X.
The rationale for this is Solomon's ruling on the two "Harlots" and the baby. If you remember the story, two women each had given birth, but one of the women's baby died. Both women claimed it was the other's woman baby that had died and the case ended up in front of Solomon to decide who was the mother. The story goes on about how he told a Soldier to cut the surviving baby in half, thus giving both women 1/2 of the baby. At that point one of the woman said that was a fine decision, the other yelled out she had been mistaken and it was clearly not her son and pleaded with Solomon NOT to cut the baby in half. At that point Solomon order the Soldier NOT to cut the baby and gave the baby to the second woman, and had the first woman whipped out of his court.
People have debated this case even since. Why does it show the Wisdom of Solomon. Most people get it wrong for the Wisdom was Solomon faced a case he could NOT decide, i.e. who was the actual mother of the Child and then transformed the case to one he could decide, i.e who would be the BETTER MOTHER of the child (i.e. the woman who was willing to give up her rights so the baby would live). The same logic was the reason for the rule as to the private parts of the Parish House. It was almost impossible to prove sex occurred, but it is relatively easy to show someone was in the Private parts by just having that person describe what was in the private parts of the Parish house.
As I said, NOT due to Vatican II, but in its Spirit, many Dioceses decided to get rid of the rule as to the private parts of the Parish home. Why punish a Priest for sending a person to his bedroom to get a book, as if he had sex with that person? On its face it makes little sense and thus was repealed. The problem is that the rule came about for it covered pedophile cases in addition to other situations and was easier to prove then sexual relations. In many ways it was like Glass-Steagall Act when it came to the banks, it worked so well it people forgot why the rule came into being and when they looked at the rule, punishing priests who had someone in the private parts of the Parish house, like they had sex with the person made no sense on its face. Little rules like that were removed and nothing was put in they place and the next thing you saw was an explosion of pedophilia cases (Another factor was the drop in Nuns, Nuns came under a different system then Priests, but were at the church on Sunday and other times the Priests had the opportunity to exploit their position and were a further check on the Priests, the drop in women becoming Nuns after 1960 removed this check on such abuse).
I can name various other factors in the explosion of pedophilia after 1970 among Catholic Clergy, but I want to keep this restricted to the rules that changed in the early 1970s and the above rule was the chief change that lead to priests avoiding internal censor for their actions (A policy of demanding proof of the actual sex act was a more serious problem, but one that should have been overcome by accusations made by other victims but was not i.e. one accusation could support another accusation). I am getting into HOW the Catholic Church handles the accusations, not the actual accusations (And I point out that how the accusations were handle is why the Catholic Church had been sued, NOT that the incidents occurred).
My biggest concern about the situation is the Catholic Church going to follow its own rules (The rules adopted in the 1990s and accepted by the Vatican) or will it do what it did from 1970-1995, ignore them? So far I have NOT heard of any cases where the rules have been ignored but it has only been 17 years since the rules were proposed in 1995, most victims do not come out and tell others of the problems till there are in they late 20s (Through many are reported at the time of the incidents to the Church. and the church's failure to handle it at that time is one of the reasons they had lost so many cases). Time will tell, we have to wait and see and make sure the rules are being followed.
Response to olddad56 (Reply #13)
Fri Sep 28, 2012, 11:01 AM
happyslug (14,779 posts)
14. Or, you are for the child losing his home, while his father has a state provided home???
You responded to Shrike's response to my my first post on this thread, where I pointed out the biggest problem was in-family not out of family perpetrators. I did respond to him about what the Church should have been doing (and has since adopted regulations to that affect), but your comment was directed at Shrike's comments NOT my later comments and I feel I have to respond to that attack on Shrike's agreement with my first comment on this thread.
Remember, the sub-topic I started was about the 90-95% of pedophilia cases, those where an older male has sex with a younger relative. In most cases a Father with his pre-teen or younger son. Are you advocating that the son should lose his HOME, change schools, lose his current friends due to the move, change from a situation where food and clothing are things he does not have to worry about, to one where it is his top concern?
The sub-topic is that the vast majority of cases are in-family, not someone outside the family. Thus you statement can mean only one thing, in the situation I pointed out, you want the father to go to Jail, so he can NOT support his son the victim AND thus the father has no worries as to housings, education, food or clothing (all provided by the State) while the VICTIM position is change from where he did not have to worry about housings, education, food or clothing to one where they become his main concern?
I did mention equal protection of the laws, it is the clause in most State and the Federal Constitution that says you have to treat everyone equally. i.e. if a father rapes his son, he has to face the same punishment as if an outsider rape his son. The reverse is also true, if an outsider rape's a man's son, that person should face the same punishment as if the Father had done the raping. It is the concept known as "Equal Protection of the Law".
Given the concept of Equal Protection of the laws, what should the punishment be in such rape cases? At the same time the law has a policy that a punishment should be more severe on the perpetrator then the victim. In the case of in-family rape, that is almost impossible to do UNLESS you leave the perpetrator out of jail so he can obtain employment and pay support. If you can send a Father to Jail AND the victim (his son) gets the same amount of support as if the Father was working, not a problem, but that is practically impossible in most cases. In my home county of Cambria County PA, welfare pays only $174 for one person, $279 for two, $365 for three, $454 for four, $543 for five, $614 for six and $83 for each additional person. Even if the Father was earning only minimum wage ($7.15 an hour) he would be contributing $286 per week or $1172.60 per month to that household. If we assume the victim had been living with his mother and father (Very common in abuse cases) $1172.60 less $279 is a difference of $893.60 per month. Food stamps would be available but the max amount for Food Stamps for two is only $367 per month for a family of two (i.e. the Welfare grant of $279 and a Food Stamp allotment of $367 once the Father goes to jail)
Pa Welfare payment Schedule:
Food Stamps payments:
When the son goes on Welfare, a welfare family of two only gets $367 per month in Food Stamps.
Please note if the Father was earning minimum wage, his family would have been eligible for Food stamps. Since his income was way above welfare the calculation would have been something like this:
Income times 30% or $1172.6 x .3 = $351.78
Then subtract that number from the Food Stamps for three (Father, Mother and son) which is only $526 (i.e. less then zero), thus the food stamps while father is living with son was still $172.22.
Thus total income, Father working Minimum wage would be: $1172.60 PLUS $172.22 Food Stamps. Total of 1346.62
Once the Father goes to jail, the Child and Mother would be getting $279 welfare AND $367 in Food Stamps. Total $646 per month.
A difference of $700.62 per month.
Food Stamps for 2012:
Response to olddad56 (Reply #13)
Fri Sep 28, 2012, 11:36 AM
happyslug (14,779 posts)
15. Now, as to the punishment I was talking about
Under the rules the Catholic Church adopted in 1995, it does INCLUDE turning the name of the priest over to the Police. Thus it would be up to the Police to decide if there is not enough evidence. Please remember often then not all you have is the word of the victim and remember under our system of law you are innocent until proven guilty and then must be beyond a reasonable doubt. If you have two people saying two different things and you have NO OTHER EVIDENCE (common in such situations) how can you say to a Judge that you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Whose lying? Even if the priests takes the Fifth (i,e, refuse to answer on the grounds that it might incriminate himself) the law then PRESUMES he would have denied the allegation. That is what the JURY must assume if the defendant does NOT take the stand. Thus these cases are rarely taken to a criminal trial, you do NOT have enough evidence to convict anyone of a crime
On the other hand Civil Litigation is a lower standard of proof for we are talking about mere money. If the jury believes the victim more then the alleged perpetrator, the perpetrator has to pay up even if the jury has doubts as to the evidence (i.e. the jury could believe both sides are not telling the whole truth but it is more likely then not that the incident occurred). Thus most of these cases end up in the Civil Courts, the lower standard of proof is the key.
As to the Church itself, it has NEVER been held liable for any SINGLE act of pedophilia. When the Church has been held liable is where it could have done something to stop such acts, but did nothing (Nothing in the eye of the Jury). Moving a Priest who has been accused of such actions is one form of punishment, for it means he loses the contacts and friends he had developed over the years. On the other hand, it is the best way to see if the accusations have any merit, if the accusations do NOT re-incur that is evidence that the accusations had been false (and false accusations are common). On the other hand if such accusations re-incur then that is strong evidence that the accusations were valid. It was at this point the church screwed up, what they should have done (and most dioceses did do this, thus most dioceses have NOT been sued) is never put the priest into a position to have access to children. What the Dioceses that have been sued did instead is continue to move the priest around. The Bishops of those Dioceses did not want to tell their friend, the accused priest, that he would NEVER be allowed around children. Where the Bishop took a stand and told the Priest he would NOT be allowed around Children, no liability set in for the Bishop took a position based on the facts he knew of. On the other hand, those Bishops who refused to restrict such Priests have been sued and held liable for NOT doing they job (Which include disciplining one's own employees).
Notice, the issue, when it gets to litigation, is rarely if the Pedophilia occurred, but if the Bishop and the Dioceses, knew about it or should have known about it based on any level of proper supervision. The same with the boy-scouts, the Boy-scouts will NOT be held liable if they did all they could reasonably do to make sure such incidents did not occur. Such incidents occur, the issue is proper supervision to minimize such incidents and the "Punishment" that is part of any supervisory duties.