Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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.

−13

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 it’s not, then you are completely disconnected from evidence based policy.

2

[deleted] t1_j98ze2d wrote

[deleted]

1

MyLittlePIMO t1_j98zikg wrote

You might not be fully understanding the law. It only applies to child sex abuse.

Not child abuse in general.

There’s a pretty clear line when it comes to sexual abuse of a child.

1

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.

2

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 it’s a lot easier. If you’re debating about whether something counts as sexual abuse of a child, something has gone horrible wrong 😵‍💫

And, I’d also point out “mandatory reporting” does not equal conviction. It just lets the police have it on the record. If they can’t prove it they won’t press charges - but it’s 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 mother’s, and a toddler struggles to express being raped in court.

The police either didn’t know they could have gone to the clergy, or didn’t 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 weren’t sure they could get a conviction on only the very traumatized mother’s 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 I’m fairly sure but the police couldn’t get to it.

I know these kids and the clergy involved personally and it’s a big part of why I’m an adamant supporter of this law.

2

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.

1

Ponsugator t1_j97ekmu wrote

Right now clergy feel like they can’t 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 couldn’t report it and it kept going. If he would have been able to report, then these two little girls lives could have been saved

1