HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Order Lets Boy Scouts Kee...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 10:30 PM

Order Lets Boy Scouts Keep New Abuse Files Private

Source: TPM

By By NOMAAN MERCHANT Associated Press

DALLAS December 1, 2012 (AP)

The Boy Scouts of America will not immediately have to turn over 27 years of so-called "perversion files" the group keeps on sexual abuse complaints against adults involved in the organization, a Texas appeal court has ruled.

A former scout who says he was sexually assaulted by a now-imprisoned former scoutmaster has filed suit in San Antonio against the national Boy Scouts and the local group in San Antonio. His attorneys want the Boy Scouts of America to turn over internal files on scout leaders dating from 1985 to last year.

State District Judge Martha Tanner ruled in August that the Scouts would have to release those files to the teenager's attorneys. The 4th Texas Court of Appeals on Thursday granted the Scouts' request to stay that portion of her order.

The public release in October of files dating from 1959 to 1985 revealed a cover-up of decades of sexual abuse, as Scout leadership sought to shield scoutmasters and other adult leaders from criminal charges. The national Scouts organization, based in the Dallas suburb of Irving, has said it now requires any suspicion of abuse to be reported to law enforcement.

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/order-lets-boy-scouts-abuse-files-private-17850194#.ULl3huRZVrf

27 replies, 3198 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 27 replies Author Time Post
Reply Order Lets Boy Scouts Keep New Abuse Files Private (Original post)
DonViejo Nov 2012 OP
atreides1 Nov 2012 #1
Archae Nov 2012 #2
happyslug Dec 2012 #17
Angry Dragon Nov 2012 #3
Phillip McCleod Dec 2012 #12
happyslug Dec 2012 #18
Angry Dragon Dec 2012 #20
happyslug Dec 2012 #22
Angry Dragon Dec 2012 #23
happyslug Dec 2012 #25
Angry Dragon Dec 2012 #26
happyslug Dec 2012 #27
SoapBox Nov 2012 #4
azurnoir Nov 2012 #5
Solly Mack Nov 2012 #6
NickP Dec 2012 #7
siligut Dec 2012 #15
jtuck004 Dec 2012 #8
Xithras Dec 2012 #21
Angry Dragon Dec 2012 #24
JoeyT Dec 2012 #9
madrchsod Dec 2012 #10
lexw Dec 2012 #11
Phillip McCleod Dec 2012 #13
happyslug Dec 2012 #19
RED ONE Dec 2012 #14
rickford66 Dec 2012 #16

Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 10:34 PM

1. Texas judges and the Catholic church have something in common

They both seem to like protecting pedophiles in order to protect the organization...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to atreides1 (Reply #1)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 10:43 PM

2. Any large organization like the RCC or BSA.

"Cover it up, keep it quiet..."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 12:07 AM

17. So does everyone else, you should attend some CYS cases

Oh, I forgot, those are CLOSED to the public, thus most people do not KNOW how prevalent this is. I use to do Children and Youth Work, and it is more common then a lot of people would like it to be. On the other hand how do you treat everyone equally in the system? I bring that up for something like 90% of the perpetrators are male relative of the victim. Thus you get the situation where a Judge has to decide a case where the Judge has to make sure the Victim is punished LESS then the perpetrator. If the perpetrator is the main financial support for the victim (more the case then not), if you throw him into jail, he has a place to live, three meals and clothing, all provided by the State. What about the victim? He or she will have to move out of their home, for the surviving parent can NOT afford to keep it for the perpetrator is in Jail and therefore can NOT pay Child Support. The Victim will have to change schools and find new friends, often in a poorer neighborhood then the Victim had lived in before.

Due to the above problems Judges are reluctant to jail perpetrators who are the main or secondary financial support for the victim. Perpetrators are given probation so they can find work (or continue the work they are doing) and pay child support. This way the victim is not punished at all, while the perpetrator is.

And under the Equal Protection of the Law doctrine, you have to treat all perpetrators the same, thus they tend to get probation unless it is clear they are incapable of paying support or other compensation, then they go to jail.

As to cover-ups, ALL organization cover up such situations, including the courts. The Boy Scouts, like the Catholic Church, did have a procedure to watch for such situations. The Catholic Church has strengthened their rules in the 1990s, to return so something like the rules that existed prior to 1960. Starting in the 1960s, under the Spirit (not the letter but the Spirit) of Vatican II, a lot of old rules were abolished, rules that seemed old fashioned but had been effective at preventing such situations (one old rule was a Priest faced the same punishment if he had a child just go into the private sections of his house as if he had sex with that child, the reason for this rule was simple, it was easy to show if the Child was in the forbidden section of the house, by just having the child describe what was in it, as opposed to the issue who was lying when the priest denied having sex and the child said yes they did).

When you deal with Children such cases will occur, it is part of having to deal with children. The real issue is NOT that such things occur, but how does the organization handle such situations. Prior to the 1960s, the Catholic Church would find the Priest Guilty of the Crime, then assign him to a job with no contact with children. Starting in the 1960s, this was changed, only in some Dioceses not most, to just moving the priest. The Courts have NOT held the Catholic Church liable for just a single case of child rape, on the grounds the Catholic Church can NOT prevent every such case, the Courts have ruled the Catholic Church liable when they failed to follow they own rules as to Priests so accused. i.e. One case by itself proves nothing, moving the priest once and such stories did not reappear then you have clear evidence the child was lying not the priest. On the other hand if the stories re-appeared with new victims, then the Priest had been lying and should have been re-assigned to a job that did not incur contact with children. Had the church adopted that solutions (and most Diocese did) no court case, but some dioceses (and all you have to do is a quick google search to find out which ones) just kept moving the accused priest around. The Courts have held the Catholic Church Liable is such situations.

Similar situations have occurred in Public Schools, but no liability has been awarded on the grounds the teacher did NOT act in the Name of the School and the School Administration should not be held liable for their refusal to discipline the teacher under the doctrine of Sovereign Immunity (i.e. the teacher and even the teacher's principal could be sued, but NOT the School). The Catholic Church does NOT have that defense, and thus have been held liable is such cases. The Boy Scouts are similar, not an organ of the State and thus NOT able to claim Sovereign Immunity.

Sorry, I have seen many such "Cover ups" often with the full compliance of the Courts and the Local District Attorneys. Happens all the time, as the Courts have to decide how to make sure the victim is punished less then the perpetrators AND that privacy of the Victim is maintained (Which also tends to protect the perpetrators). Most people want such situations over and done with, and that is what most "Cover Ups" tend to be, the victim wanting the situation to end AND the perpetrator given enough restrictions so the harm can NOT repeat. That appears to be what the Boy Scouts were trying to do with this list, keep tabs on potential problem people. In many ways that should be encouraged and turning such a list over to lawyers is one way to DISCOURAGED internal addressing of the problem.

Yes, we all what such perpetrators punished, but do we want the victim punished worse? Do we what to encourage such internal record keeping so organization like the Boy Scouts can prevent as many of these perpetrators from doing more harm (or do we want them to just ignore such situations and hope that it would go away, that is what the Catholic Bishops in the Catholic Church did and we can see how well that worked out). It is a difficult situation and I hope the Judge will consider all the factors in this case, and apparently the Texas Court of Appeals has. We may dislike the decision, but at least the issue is being addressed not ignored.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 10:43 PM

3. Prison for all of them

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #3)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 08:21 AM

12. including the 4th circuit judges imo

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 12:10 AM

18. Even if that means the victim is punished more then the perpetrator?

See my previous posts, but you have to understand something like 90% of all child abuse cases involve male family members as the perpetrators and when that is the case, to jail the perpetrator is to remove the support such perpetrator can provide to the victim. So by sending the perpetrators to Jail, you may be also making the Victim Homeless, is that what you want?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to happyslug (Reply #18)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 09:57 AM

20. How would you like it if you had to live with your abuser

to have to see them everyday??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #20)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 01:30 PM

22. Who said anything about living with the abuser?

There is a difference between living and getting child support because the abuser is WORKING and living and getting NO CHILD SUPPORT for the abuser is in Jail. Which do you prefer? Having to move or even become homeless because you and your Mother can no longer pay for the home you are in because father is in Jail OR staying in the same home because he is OUT of Jail and working and thus paying child support? I am sorry, but I think most victims would prefer the later.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to happyslug (Reply #22)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 03:45 PM

23. So in your eyes it is okay to have pedophiles out loose in society??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #23)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 06:17 PM

25. So you want children to be homeless?

That is the other side of jailing pedophiles, remember most are male relatives of the Victim, often the father and the main income earner for the family,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to happyslug (Reply #25)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 07:01 PM

26. LOL!!

as I shake my head and chuckle

I guess then the only option left is to make then eunuchs and then they would be punished, the children would be protected, and the relative would be able to supply money ........... I think that solves all the problems


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #26)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:26 PM

27. Making them eunuchs is ineffective, it does NOT stop such attacks

Studies have shown the attack in an act of power over a weaker person NOT something sexually driven, thus making someone an Eunuchs has no effect on the rate of re-doing the crime. On the other hand constant supervision has an effect.

This is a constant problem, how do you make sure the VICTIM is punished less then the perpetrator? And prevent further crimes? Jailing the perpetrator (generally the Father) ends up hurting the victim more then the perpetrator (the Perpetrator gets a home and three hot meals a day, the victim may end up not knowing where his next meal is coming from and homeless).

I hate to say this the best solution is probation that never ends, i.e. someone checks up on the perpetrator for the rest of his life. On the other hand the perpetrator is free to find work to support the victim. It is not the best system, but it is the best we can do given that we expect children to be supported by their parents NOT the state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 11:07 PM

4. Perversion is certainly correct...

This whole kit-and-kaboodle is perverted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 11:44 PM

5. disgusting the BoyScouts are protecting pedophiles

I am glad my son is not a member

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 11:48 PM

6. Sure...continue the cover up. That's just so helpful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 12:05 AM

7. And so the cycle of idiocy continues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickP (Reply #7)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 01:06 PM

15. That seems to be the plan

Abuse, secrecy, dysfunction, despair and finally compliance. Voila! The GOP and friends.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 12:27 AM

8. Isn't a "sexual abuse complaints" a report of a potential crime?


Why is there even a discussion about this being on a detective's desk?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jtuck004 (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 01:00 PM

21. The police have seen them. Most of the posters in this thread are fairly clueless about the subject.

A primary reason for the mid-80's cutoff is that all accusations after this period have already been reported to law enforcement. That was the period they implemented the Youth Protection Program that instituted mandatory background checks, yearly training, changed interaction policies to make abuse more difficult...and most importantly, removed all discretion from local leaders as to reporting. If it's in those files, the police have ALREADY seen the accusation.

The procedure changed. If any records made it into the files after that point, it has to be accompanied by information on when the police were notified and what the result of the police investigation was. If there were any coverups after that period, they wouldn't be in those files anyway.

The problem, of course, is that many accusations ARE made without merit (I know of one case where a Cubmaster and the married mother of one of his scouts struck up a relationship...that one got UGLY when it came apart). Those records include a signifigant number of accusations that were turned over to the police, investigated, and found to be without basis. There are also records of leaders who were expelled for violating youth protection policies, where there were no accusations of abuse (as another example, an ASM once allowed a boy to sleep in his tent after the boys tent collapsed in the rain...there was absolutely no accusation of wrongdoing, but the leader was immediately thrown out under the BSA's zero tolerance policies and a report was turned over to the police). There are serious ethical problems with making these records public, as doing so will victimize people who have already been cleared of wrongdoing by law enforcement. There are few stigmas worse than being accused of being a potential child predator, and having that accusation become public, even when the police have cleared you, is devastating.

Hell, there's a poster right here in this discussion wishing prison on every one of them. Who cares if they're actually innocent, right? If they're accused, they must be guilty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xithras (Reply #21)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 03:49 PM

24. That would be me ...........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 01:09 AM

9. It's a damned good thing

they're keeping LGBT people and atheists out. Otherwise we might think they were immoral.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 01:51 AM

10. there is a guy from my town that is in those files

he was finally outed went to prison, got out when he was in his late 70`s and abused again. he`s in for the rest of his life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 03:29 AM

11. Anyone else feel the judicial branch and the U.S. majority are moving in opposite directions?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lexw (Reply #11)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 08:23 AM

13. 4th circuit is notoriously corrupt and neocon

 

its not the only circuit like that either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phillip McCleod (Reply #13)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 12:15 AM

19. The Federal 4th Circuit or the Texas 4th Circuit?

This appeal was handled by the TEXAS 4th Circuit court of appeals NOT the Federal Court of Appeals.

http://www.4thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/

Appears to be an "orginal" Action in the 4th Circuit:

http://www.search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=04-12-00801-CV

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 10:42 AM

14. Must be plenty!

The B.S.A. must have so many freaks it might cloug up the system. Does make me wonder is that or was that judge in the scouts? Do they hand out a "specal" badge to the abuser?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 01:33 PM

16. The Boy Scouts are lucky

If they had a football team they'd really have to pay up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread