Ethics

[d1jinx]

I think part of the problem with bringing criminal charges is the time btween now and when it occurred. Sure guilty is guilty, but the longer the time between when it happened and when the victim pursues charges against the offender, the harder it is to get a conviction. TIME is a bad thing when it comes to sexual offenses, bad for everyone especially the victim.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Yes, counseling. But how do we get them counseling if we cut them off?

Telling a sex offender that you will not sign off on him opening a school because of his actions is not cutting him off, however. He could have been allowed to remain in the organization and encouraged to seek counseling at the very least.

But what is the definition of "passively condone"?

Not sure if this is the official definition, but this what I mean: The head may not condone the offender's actions, but by authorizing a sex offender to open a school with organizational support that will give him access to minors is essentially condoning his actions.

I think this is a bigger problem than people realize. I think that martial arts schools are about as vulnerable and exposed as the Catholic Church is on this issue. I think that it is not limited to students or instructors but also parents of students.

And many people left the Catholic church, not because the abuse happened (any large organization that deals with children is vulnerable to such things), but because they tried to hide it and shuffled these guys around. When it all finally came out in this decade, little to no disciplinary action was visibly taken against any of those who enabled the offending priests and they tried very hard to keep those priests out of secular court.

As a result of what I perceive as a complete trivialization of the issue and no meaningful action being taken by a pope who was nicknamed 'the enforcer', I have stopped giving any money to the church, very nearly left, and the organization is still on probation in my mind. Obviously, I haven't left. I do feel that those who did were in the right. The abject failure of church leadership above the parish level in this area is such that I have withdrawn my confidence in the ability of the Pope and the cardinals to effectively lead.

Crying for the cameras was all fine and good, but had those priests been school teachers, they'd have all been fired. Those men should all have been suspended and made to deal with the legal system, and only upon being cleared, have been allowed to continue as priests.

In another dojang, there was a father who would watch his son at every practice. The other parents as well as the students and instructors considered him a little weird. Then one of the parents was looking through the sex offender list on the internet for the neighborhood and discovered that this parent in question was convicted of possession of child pornography. Apparently he had been caught with images on his work computer.

Not the same. First, Dad most likely didn't have sex with and film the kids in question. Second, nobody is entrusting their kids to that Dad. They are entrusting them to the instructors at the school.

What should be done in this situation?

Depends on what sort of rules a registered sex offender has to follow in his state with regards to setting foot in establishments that cater to children. I am not familiar with them.

Should we kick the student out because of what his father was convicted of? Everyone is in favor of doing background checks of instructors, but should we do them for parents and adult students as well prior to signing them up?

No. Again, the dad is not being entrusted with the students who go to school and has no access to any children outside of his own. He is seated with other parents and being watched the entire time. And as a parent, I was always careful about other adults in such establishments and didn't leave my kids unattended with other parents.

Daniel

 

[puunui]

And many people left the Catholic church, not because the abuse happened (any large organization that deals with children is vulnerable to such things), but because they tried to hide it and shuffled these guys around. When it all finally came out in this decade, little to no disciplinary action was visibly taken against any of those who enabled the offending priests and they tried very hard to keep those priests out of secular court.

I wonder whether it was covered by confession. Not being Catholic, I don't really understand how that works. I can tell you that the Catholic Church has paid out HUGE sums to settle these types of cases.

No. Again, the dad is not being entrusted with the students who go to school and has no access to any children outside of his own. He is seated with other parents and being watched the entire time. And as a parent, I was always careful about other adults in such establishments and didn't leave my kids unattended with other parents.

So no background checks for parents? It's unclear from your post.

There are opportunities for the parent in question to be entrusted with the students. His own son makes friends and invites dojang students for a birthday party or sleepover for example. Or the dojang has a sleepover and he is one of the supervising parents. If something happened, I would think there might be some legal exposure for the dojang.

 

[msmitht]

I'm sure halpino can give you all the evidence you need. I do understand there is a criminal investigation into the matter.

I'm sure that if there were physiacl evidence or a witness then he would have been arrested.

 

[puunui]

I'm sure that if there were physiacl evidence or a witness then he would have been arrested.

Interesting comment, given your earlier statement about enablers:

>I would also like to say that ANYONE who takes the pedophiles,
>or whatever the appropriate name is for this scumbag, side on
>this matter is an enabler and is just as guilty of the crimes
>themselves. I will be ignoring any and all supporters.

 

[msmitht]

2 seperate things. Convicted child sex offenders and their enablers are scum. The gentleman in question has not been convicted nor even arrested. I do not like this man but he has not been charged. We can not assume he is guilty.

 

[WC_lun]

The head of the organisation is not thinking of the welfare of his students nor the welfare of the pedophile. Putting a pedophile in contact with so many children is stupid and in no way puts even the best intentioned pedophile in a position to not commit crimes. Then there are the children. How do you put these children at risk? I just don't understand the thinking. I would also leave the organization, though I am not sure I would be very respectfull or quiet in my departure. Some actions do not deserve respect nor to be brushed aside where they can be ignored. It is right to leave the oraganization, but if the pedophile is still in with children, they still are in danger. Evil can only suceed when good men do nothing.

 

[Bruno@MT]

The head of the organisation is not thinking of the welfare of his students nor the welfare of the pedophile. Putting a pedophile in contact with so many children is stupid and in no way puts even the best intentioned pedophile in a position to not commit crimes. Then there are the children. How do you put these children at risk?

My litmus test for these things is this: would I be able to explain the decision to my 5 year old daughter if she asked me why I did or did not do something. The decision to allow a pedophile (or a guy who likes to have sex with many underage kids if that is a better comparison) to surround himself with kids; How do you explain to your 5 year old daughter that the feelings / rights of the pedophile or the revenue he creates were more important to you than the wellbeing of the children placed in under your responsibility?

I just don't understand the thinking. I would also leave the organization, though I am not sure I would be very respectfull or quiet in my departure.

I would raise hell.
And -if all other, more respectful and private options were exhausted- publicly put the organization to shame. Perhaps get the local news crew to show up at the headmaster's door and ask him to explain his reasoning in surrounding a pedophile with kids, with a camera in front of his face and a microphone under his nose.

Some actions do not deserve respect nor to be brushed aside where they can be ignored. It is right to leave the oraganization, but if the pedophile is still in with children, they still are in danger. Evil can only suceed when good men do nothing.

Amen.

 

[Bruno@MT]

2 seperate things. Convicted child sex offenders and their enablers are scum. The gentleman in question has not been convicted nor even arrested. I do not like this man but he has not been charged. We can not assume he is guilty.

He has not been convicted of pedophelia because it happens that what he did is apparently legal. Now, I am willing to conced that feelings can develop between 2 people and that a relationship can develop, even if one of the parties is barely of consenting age. While potentially objectionable, it is arguable that such a relationship is between loving partners. People are individuals, and some are more mature than others. Fair enough.

A guy making sex tapes of dozens of girls under his responsibility... that is a slightly different situation. Given that teenage girls don't typically drop their clothes for the pleasure of adult males (or even boys their own age), and given that it happened many times, it is arguable that he manipulated them into doing so, without caring about them or loving them. That means he is scum. Even then, suppose there is a teeny tiny itsy bitsy sliver of a chance that he is not a scum (though I would not know how to explain it but let's assume it for the sake of the argument), there is enough data to suggest that the chances are pretty high indeed.

Now, even knowing that it is very likely but not 100% ironclad certain that a person is a sexual predator who seduces teen girls, would putting them among kids in a position of authority be a prudent, honorable course of action? Or would it -for the sake of the kids you are responsible for- be best if that person was not in that position in your name?

 

[StudentCarl]

Consenting sexual activity between authority and student is an ethical violation on the part of the authority. The 'consent' was obtained in a situation of unequal influence, something usually lost on the 'consenting' person because it's part of their attraction to the senior.

If that's not clear enough, making video of any sexual activity of someone under 18 is production of child pornography. I haven't seen anyplace yet in the US where that isn't prosecuted. I would argue for each subject/video as a separate charge since, apparently, different females were involved. Presence of multiple videos is evidence of perverse intent, not the 'true love' situation mentioned further above as a possibility.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I wonder whether it was covered by confession. Not being Catholic, I don't really understand how that works. I can tell you that the Catholic Church has paid out HUGE sums to settle these types of cases..

As a catholic, I can tell you that confession was never intended to shield the sinful from the legal consequences of their actions. The seal of the confessional does not cover a victim reporting the crime, in which case the crime is brought to light through channels outside of the priest hearing the confession. The seal is prevents the priest hearing the confession from sharing that information with others. I am not sure, but there may be a rule that allows the seal to be broken in certain cases where a crime involves a victim. I'll have to get back to you on that.

So no background checks for parents? It's unclear from your post.

There are opportunities for the parent in question to be entrusted with the students. His own son makes friends and invites dojang students for a birthday party or sleepover for example. Or the dojang has a sleepover and he is one of the supervising parents. If something happened, I would think there might be some legal exposure for the dojang.

You are talking about social events set up between students which take place outside of the dojang and which are not under the supervision of dojang personel. Mom and dad need to make use of the sex offender registry in their area and get to know the parent well before allowing their kids to go sleep over at someone else's home. Even for a birthday party at someone else's home, a parent should do so. I was very careful about who's home's my kids were allowed to be in without my supervision. That was my job as a parent, not the school system's or the dojang's.

Forcing parents to undergo a background check because their kids may socialize off premises is unreasonable and would probably be unenforcible.

If the party occurrs at the dojang and parents are asked to volunteer, then I would not be opposed to it. I don't know of dojangs that do sleepovers, though again, if a parent is volunteering in a supervisory role, then likewise, I would not be opposed to it.

The best way to handle under the radar parents who might be sex offenders, however, is for parents to be involved with their kids and to know the people that their kids are dealing with.

Daniel

 

[jks9199]

As a catholic, I can tell you that confession was never intended to shield the sinful from the legal consequences of their actions. The seal of the confessional does not cover a victim reporting the crime, in which case the crime is brought to light through channels outside of the priest hearing the confession. The seal is prevents the priest hearing the confession from sharing that information with others. I am not sure, but there may be a rule that allows the seal to be broken in certain cases where a crime involves a victim. I'll have to get back to you on that.

Within the Catholic Church, the seal of the confessional is absolute. A priest may not violate it. He may require, as part of the penance, that the penitent turn himself in. He may take some steps that would warn a potential victim while still respecting the seal. I think there's even an exemption from the mandatory reporting laws if that information is obtained within the confessional, though I'm not certain. I do know that priests have gone to jail rather than violate the seal.

 

[Bruno@MT]

Within the Catholic Church, the seal of the confessional is absolute. A priest may not violate it. He may require, as part of the penance, that the penitent turn himself in. He may take some steps that would warn a potential victim while still respecting the seal. I think there's even an exemption from the mandatory reporting laws if that information is obtained within the confessional, though I'm not certain. I do know that priests have gone to jail rather than violate the seal.

I don't know the details, but the recent exposure of sexual abuse by the church and institutional coverup have changed a number of things. There is discussion about changing the laws surrounding the seal of the confessional in cases of sexual abuse. There is a chance that it may become mandatory for priests to report on cases of sexual abuse. It would be interesting to see how that plays out. Canon law cannot go against criminal law.

The reason for this recommendation is because this scenario played out many times in belgium, in the past.
Priest1: Forgive me father, for I have sinned
Priest2: what did you do?
Priest1: I gave in to temptation and butt raped a young boy.
Priest2: That will be 3 hail marys, and I you want to reflect on the heinousness of your transgression. Now go and sin no more.
<1 month later>
Priest1: Forgive me father, for I have sinned
...

Here, Priest2 is the enabler.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I don't know the details, but the recent exposure of sexual abuse by the church and institutional coverup have changed a number of things. There is discussion about changing the laws surrounding the seal of the confessional in cases of sexual abuse. There is a chance that it may become mandatory for priests to report on cases of sexual abuse. It would be interesting to see how that plays out. Canon law cannot go against criminal law.

The fact that this is still in discussion years after the scandal made international news is a prime example of the failure of church leaders.

Daniel

 

[Archtkd]

One of the instructors was arrested for having 62 video tapes of him having sex with underage girls from his gym. Because the girls were 15/16 it was considered as consenting age in this state (yeh... believe it or not). So even though this guy was in his mid 40s he got of with basically a slap on the wrist and told to get out of town (they even left him with his counseling license!) So basically this guy moved to another city and wanted to open another gym. When my instructor told me he was going to allow him too I took that as the last straw on the camels back and left that organization (yes there were other problems up to this point but this was one thing I couldn't put up with). However none of the other instructors in the organization did. Even when I confronted them. I felt, and I told them this, that if that person belonged to the organization and I was part of the organization I was supporting him. Their position was that they were supporting the "head guy" and not this one instructor.

Not to sound blase, but what is this thread about? Crime, culture, ethics, morality or religion? There is a heavy focus on crime, but was there one.

1. What was the instructor actually arrested for? Was he charged with a specific crime?

2. If the age of consent in your state is 15/16 where the girls involved younger than that?

3. Also, what state is that, which legally allows a 40-something year old man to sleep with a 15-year old girl , over whom he has authority, and video tape the act?

4. What kind of counselling licence does the man have?

 

[puunui]

2 seperate things. Convicted child sex offenders and their enablers are scum. The gentleman in question has not been convicted nor even arrested. I do not like this man but he has not been charged. We can not assume he is guilty.

There was no mention of conviction in the facts that were given to us. It seems that you understood this because you followed up with a post about what he did being a federal crime and wanting to know what state would not prosecuteon in this situation. So what happened was you advocated a death sentence for this person, even though he was not convicted. You also had some strong words for enablers, but it is unclear to me whether you feel that they deserve a death sentence as well. But when the USAT situation was raised, you wanted proof and stated that if there were evidence in the case, then someone would have been arrested and/or convicted, which arguably could be construed as enabling behavior. Two similar situations, but two different responses from you.

The point I am trying to make is that things seem black and white, until you are involved personally, and then other considerations come into play. And again, for those ready to fly off the handle and jump to conclusions, I am not advocating any position, but rather what I am trying to do is to understand the decision making process of the people involved and get to the reasons why they acted or did not act. That is valuable information to me and a valuable analytical process, understanding people's motivations, from their perspective, not mine. This process goes applies whether a parent decides to support their accused child, or whether a head instructor is deciding what to do with a student, or whether the pope is deciding what to do with priests or whether USAT and its leaders decide what to do with its national coaches.

 

[miguksaram]

We can not assume he is guilty...

Actually we can assume anything we want based on our bias. For example if I did not like him I could quickly assume that he was guilty. However, if I did not like the accuser then I could quickly assume he is innocent.

Hopefully facts will prevail either way and we can turn our assumptions into valid statements.

 

[chrispillertkd]

Canon law cannot go against criminal law.

Do you have a source for this?

Pax,

Chris

 

[jks9199]

Do you have a source for this?

Pax,

Chris

Actually, canon law CAN go against criminal or civil law -- but that doesn't mean it supersedes or supplants it, nor does it mean that a priest or other person adhering to canon law cannot be punished for violating criminal laws. For the specific issue of the seal of the confessional -- I already noted that some priests have gone to jail rather than break the seal.

But, folks, this is kind of drifting off topic, and may be more appropriate for a separate thread.