|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Church and State
|
aliehs
Shipmate
# 18878
|
Posted
In the land of the sunburnt country, we have finally had the findings of the Royal Commission into child abuse. It has concentrated on the abuse within institutions and the inadequacy to say the least, of responses to complaints.The practices were world wide, not just in OZ, and were condoned to the point of suppression of evidence and moving of perpetrators to yet another happy hunting ground.I know the spiritual difficulties of requiring mandatory reporting of such matters, when the sacrament of confession is involved, but surely the higher good here is the welfare of the child rather than the seal of the confessional?. What do you think?
--------------------
Now I see through a glass darkly. Maybe I should clean my specs.
sld2A
Posts: 160 | From: Australia | Registered: Dec 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
I will leave comment on the status of the seal to others, as I have certainly expressed myself plenty on that issue.
My question to the OP is: do you have evidence that mandatory reporting makes children safer? If so, I'd love to see it.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Not reporting sure as hell doesn't make anyone safer. Neither does moving abusers without informing their new position or putting any safeguards in place.
Whilst there is some evidence that abusers caught and treated have a lower rate of recidivism than often thought, their is ample evidence that those merely moved continued abusing.
Institutions cannot be trusted to self-monitor.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
Amen to that last point. My wife informed me last night that the Archdiocese of Ballarat is still defending claims for compensation resulting from the conduct of jailed pedophile Gerard Ridsdale. Here's the article
The bishops told the Commission they were going to treat the survivors of abuse with compassion...
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
On Church and State title, this notes the Commission's recommendations on the secrecy of the confessional and priestly celibacy. It seems to me that the recommendation treads across the line. What do you think?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Not reporting sure as hell doesn't make anyone safer. Neither does moving abusers without informing their new position or putting any safeguards in place.
Whilst there is some evidence that abusers caught and treated have a lower rate of recidivism than often thought, their is ample evidence that those merely moved continued abusing.
Institutions cannot be trusted to self-monitor.
Agree with the last. This is not about institutions.
Here in Oz, my state (WA) was the last to bring in mandatory reporting. This was done for political reasons, not based on the evidence, all of which indicated that mandatory reporting does not make children safer, but in fact has limited to negative impacts. After a targeted campaign by the local newspaper, the editor of whom kept demanding that the govt "do something" - mandatory reporting was brought in. Classic logical fallacy - sonething must be done, this is something, therefore this must be done.
I can chase that research up, and I am happy to, but first the assertion that mandatory reporting makes children safer still needs supporting. I will be just over here, waiting.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
What do you propose as an alternative? Self reporting? Hiding the crimes hasn't worked.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
For the third time, my proposal is that someone provide me some evidence that mandatory reporting works. Am I saying it wrong?
It isn't my job to provide an alternative. If the OP wants to claim that mandatory reporting is the way to go, than I look forward to seeing the evidence.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
On Church and State title, this notes the Commission's recommendations on the secrecy of the confessional and priestly celibacy. It seems to me that the recommendation treads across the line. What do you think?
You and I don't agree much, Gee, but we do on this.
I am not commenting on the seal, which I have railed against many times on these boards. I have very mixed feelings about it. But with regards to celibacy - that is absurd. I mean, I actually think priestly celibacy as a requirement is also absurd, personally, but that is an issue for the church to resolve. The commission can "call" for that to change all they want, that really isn't their call.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
lilBuddha's comment had a double negative - not reporting didn't make children safer. I don't really understand how that takes matters further.
As to the secrecy of the confessional: AIUI, there is no evidence that anyone has gone to confession, confessed to child abuse and then been absolved. I suppose that one person who could give such evidence would be the one confessing, so the lack of evidence is scarcely surprising. Again, AIUI, the church's position is that absolution should not be given until the penitent has gone to the police and told them what was confessed. Another possible penitent would be the victim confessing to "impurity with others" and it would be very strange if a priest receiving such a confession did not strongly counsel that what had happened was not a sin by the child but by the abuser, and that the child should go to the police - indeed volunteer to go to the police with the child.
On a very practical note: confession seems of little importance these days, no longer the queues out the door every Saturday afternoon. Indeed, a devout Catholic friend tells me that the local parish has reduced the time for confession to an hour and that even then the priest is not exactly overburdened.
[ 15. December 2017, 05:58: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
I am not commenting on the seal, which I have railed against many times on these boards. I have very mixed feelings about it. But with regards to celibacy - that is absurd. I mean, I actually think priestly celibacy as a requirement is also absurd, personally, but that is an issue for the church to resolve. The commission can "call" for that to change all they want, that really isn't their call.
We may even agree that priestly celibacy is not a matter of doctrine for the Catholic church, but of governance - just as the Eastern Orthodoxen permit marriage for parish priests but not for bishops as they must be monks. Not sure about those in the various Oriental Orthodox churches.
[ 15. December 2017, 06:04: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
On Church and State title, this notes the Commission's recommendations on the secrecy of the confessional and priestly celibacy. It seems to me that the recommendation treads across the line. What do you think?
You and I don't agree much, Gee, but we do on this.
I am not commenting on the seal, which I have railed against many times on these boards. I have very mixed feelings about it. But with regards to celibacy - that is absurd. I mean, I actually think priestly celibacy as a requirement is also absurd, personally, but that is an issue for the church to resolve. The commission can "call" for that to change all they want, that really isn't their call.
This was reported in the UK news this morning. The bit about celibacy really hacks me off for two reasons:
1) Celibacy is already voluntary - nobody is compelled to become a minister in a church which requires celibacy from its ministers.
2) It reinforces the idea that how people choose to live their sexuality has a bearing on whether they become child molesters. There is nothing inherently perverted/creepy/unnatural about feeling called to live a celibate life. The only choice that makes someone become a child molester is choosing to molest children.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
I don't see how mandatory violation of the seal of confession would actually lead to more reporting. Surely abusers would just not go to confession if they thought the priest would tell the police, unless they were already willing for the police to be told.
Also how would you enforce it? If an abuser confessed and the priest kept quiet, how would anyone find out?
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I am aghast if I understand that any clergy anywhere would here of child sexual abuse in confession and then provide absolution without reporting being part of the absolution. As far as I know in Canada the is nothing absolute about any privilege to keep communication about children in danger secret. I would personally support prosecuting and suing a church and clergy if a person confessed, was not reported and then harmed again.
I am also reminded of people who know charges are coming shortly who hurry get themselves into counselling as a way of assisting in their defence against consequences. Contriteness of heart is a process, not a one-off or even a few months of confessing and praying and doing the thing. But then I am in favour of the Christian life, a pattern of life and am highly suspicious of born againness.
A principle of anything about people is to understand power dynamics, and that the weakest and least powerful always suffers the most, amd this we must ensure the last shall be first, and the first last etc.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Aren't other crimes already a parallel case? If I go into the confessional and tell the priest that I just murdered my husband, the body's buried out back, does he just absolve me and set a penance? If he cannot convince me to go tell the cops, is he not obliged to go and tell them himself?
Or better yet, if I confess I intend to murder him, and have just put the rat poison into the Keurig machine before coming to the church. Is the priest not obliged to hastily call in the authorities, before the machine dispenses that first cup of coffee?
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
I can chase that research up, and I am happy to, . . .
Please do.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Aren't other crimes already a parallel case? If I go into the confessional and tell the priest that I just murdered my husband, the body's buried out back, does he just absolve me and set a penance? If he cannot convince me to go tell the cops, is he not obliged to go and tell them himself?
I believe the priest is obliged under canon law not to tell the authorities (although the penance is supposed to include 'tell the authorities'). There's a Hitchcock film where the central character is a Catholic priest in exactly that position. Does nobody watch Hitchcock films these days?
If someone confesses to their lawyer is the lawyer obliged to report it? That seems to have problematic implications.
It seems to me that in the case where a perpetrator confesses to a priest that the perpetrator would not have confessed without the expectation of confidentiality. The same would apply to a counsellor or psychiatrist. Legally requiring that the confession be passed on has an air of enforcing self-incrimination. It seems to me (I may be wrong) that it's probably the case that if the practical choice is between not confessing at all and confessing in confidence it's better for the person to confess in confidence.
The problematic case it seems to me is where the victim brings it up in confessional. There I think there is an argument for mandatory reporting. A conscientious priest could ask the victim to discuss it outside the confessional. But many priests did not.
But it seems to me that the focus on the confessional is something of a distraction. The problem isn't things that were confessed in confidence and weren't passed on, so much as complaints outside the confessional that were suppressed.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Aren't other crimes already a parallel case? If I go into the confessional and tell the priest that I just murdered my husband, the body's buried out back, does he just absolve me and set a penance? If he cannot convince me to go tell the cops, is he not obliged to go and tell them himself?
Or better yet, if I confess I intend to murder him, and have just put the rat poison into the Keurig machine before coming to the church. Is the priest not obliged to hastily call in the authorities, before the machine dispenses that first cup of coffee?
At least under Canon Law in both the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church (as I understand it, anyway!), quite the reverse: the priest is obliged NOT to tell anyone. Further, under RCC Law at least, the obligation extends as far as not being able to confirm or deny whether the penitent made a confession at all.
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
This was reported in the UK news this morning. The bit about celibacy really hacks me off for two reasons:
1) Celibacy is already voluntary - nobody is compelled to become a minister in a church which requires celibacy from its ministers.
2) It reinforces the idea that how people choose to live their sexuality has a bearing on whether they become child molesters. There is nothing inherently perverted/creepy/unnatural about feeling called to live a celibate life. The only choice that makes someone become a child molester is choosing to molest children.
I don't think it is the calling, but the forcing that people think is the issue. They are still wrong, but it is a different thing.
The pressure imposed by celibacy is towards those who one would be attracted to if one were not celibate, not towards whatever is handy. In other words, people molest because that is their bent, not because they couldn't shag willing adults.
[ 15. December 2017, 15:11: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
I can chase that research up, and I am happy to, . . .
Please do.
Hey there, thanks, I will.
If you read the part you snipped, you will see that I am expecting that the OP will be supported first. Are you following along here?
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
I can chase that research up, and I am happy to, . . .
Please do.
Hey there, thanks, I will.
If you read the part you snipped, you will see that I am expecting that the OP will be supported first. Are you following along here?
You make a claim, back it up. It has fuck all to do with whether the OP blinks first.
Your case is not made because s/he isn't playing along. The RCC* have fucked up for years in their treatment and responses to the problem. If you are going to criticise a response to this, it is incumbent upon you to show why the response is flawed.
*Really a problem in all institutions where trust and confidentiality are present. I would add that "forgiveness" worsens the problem and all major religions have this issue; it is the size and structure of the RCC that have made it a larger issue for them.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Aren't other crimes already a parallel case? If I go into the confessional and tell the priest that I just murdered my husband, the body's buried out back, does he just absolve me and set a penance? If he cannot convince me to go tell the cops, is he not obliged to go and tell them himself?
Or better yet, if I confess I intend to murder him, and have just put the rat poison into the Keurig machine before coming to the church. Is the priest not obliged to hastily call in the authorities, before the machine dispenses that first cup of coffee?
Brenda, I think the position in these cases is that he or she is obliged to withhold absolution until the penitent has given themselves up.
My suspicion is that this may be one of those theoretical dilemmas that everyone talks about but in practice don't arise. I don't know, of course, but I think it is very, very rare and tending to 'never happens' that a person confesses to an unsolved crime in the confessional - yet alone does so in the imagination that they can get absolved without having to take the rap.
We will never know, of course, and it's probably right that we shouldn't, but I can't imagine that even any of the notorious clerical abusers, to whom spiritually it should have mattered, actually did seek sacramental confession and absolution for the horrible things they are alleged to have done.
What state their souls were in doesn't bear thinking about.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The pressure imposed by celibacy is towards those who one would be attracted to if one were not celibate, not towards whatever is handy. In other words, people molest because that is their bent, not because they couldn't shag willing adults.
I claim this is an empirically false statement. Consider sex amongst incarcerated prisoners. There are any number of examples of prisoners who would consider themselves, and be considered, completely straight on the outside having gay sex on the inside. Because it's a straight (if you'll pardon the expression) choice between shagging another prisoner or being celibate. They do, exactly, have sex with whoever is handy.
And yes, there's plenty of rape in prisons too.
So I find it completely believable that there are some people who would not normally molest someone (children, adults, whoever) but who engage in molestation when they have access to molestees and no access to sexual outlets that they might prefer.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Your analysis is flawed. One, you assume that prisoners who have non-rape sex is completely voluntary. This is not accurate. Some do so as a form of exchange.
Two, you assume that people who have not had same sex sexual encounters outside of prison are completely straight.
Three, they are confined in prison. Priests are not.
Given the high number of priests who shag consenting adults instead of children, it implies a possibility that might occur to just about everyone.
You also ignore that positions of trust and athority draw abusers.
And you ignore that every major religion has an abuse problem. And has had cover-up problems. The RCC differs in that they are a monolithic, hierarchical organisation that allows for an ease of coverup not available to everyone else.
Celibacy is a red herring.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
I can chase that research up, and I am happy to, . . .
Please do.
Hey there, thanks, I will.
If you read the part you snipped, you will see that I am expecting that the OP will be supported first. Are you following along here?
You make a claim, back it up. It has fuck all to do with whether the OP blinks first.
Blink.
Blink.
Blink.
Do you anticipate supporting your claims at any point? Does the OP?
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
I can chase that research up, and I am happy to, . . .
Please do.
Hey there, thanks, I will.
If you read the part you snipped, you will see that I am expecting that the OP will be supported first. Are you following along here?
You make a claim, back it up. It has fuck all to do with whether the OP blinks first.
Blink.
Blink.
Blink.
Do you anticipate supporting your claims at any point? Does the OP?
First article says studies should be done to determine whether mandatory reporting will help.
Second and third suggest training is needed.
They don't appear to say what you imply.
I need to prove what I said? I really need to go through the history of the RCC scandal to demonstrate how hiding abuse led to more abuse?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
Ok, so you didn't read them. Because your potted summary is wrong. The first article argues that mandatory reporting does not make children safer.
Yes, you have to support your points with more than bluster. I am not talking about covering things up - nice straw man, btw - I am talking about mandated reporting, and whether it rather than other options, is anything more than a sop to people who shake their fists and demand "something" be done.
So, for like the zillionth time - where is your evidence?
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Ok, so you didn't read them. Because your potted summary is wrong. The first article argues that mandatory reporting does not make children safer.
It sort of tries, but they say this at the beginning.
quote:
The ADF has been unable to find substan
tial detailed evaluation of the impact of
mandatory reporting in any setting.
quote:
Yes, you have to support your points with more than bluster.
My point was hiding makes it worse. Here is evidence and fuck anyone who needs more examples, though unfortunately there are.
John Sidney Denham
I didn't say mandatory reporting was the answer, but did charge you to prove it isn't. Your links don't do that. At best, they raise questions.
You say mandatory reporting doesn't work.
Not reporting clearly leads to more abuse.
What is your compromise?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
No, your point was that not reporting does not make anyone safer. Hiding abuse is a straw man, no one here is advocating that. So start arguing honestly, or I'll be more than happy to sling shit at twelve paces in Hell.
The article argues that there is no basis for the claim that mandatory reporting does not work. It makes that claim on page 1. It us one of three pieces posted in support of that assertion.
Should the confession be unsealed? No comment.
Should priests be able to shag and marry? Yep. Should the state tell the church they have to let 'em? Nope.
Does mandatory reporting work? No. Should institutions conceal or move abusers around to avoid dealing with them? Of course fucking not.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
No, your point was that not reporting does not make anyone safer.
That was a sentence in a post, not the point I was making, if you actually read for context.
quote:
Hiding abuse is a straw man, no one here is advocating that.
If you are not reporting it, you are hiding it.
quote:
So start arguing honestly, or I'll be more than happy to sling shit at twelve paces in Hell.
I am arguing honestly, but go ahead if you wish. If you think the threat of Hell bothers me, you are not very observant.
quote:
The article argues that there is no basis for the claim that mandatory reporting does not work.
I think you have phrased this to a rather different intent than you likely wished to.
quote:
It makes that claim on page 1. It us one of three pieces posted in support of that assertion.
The first link admits on the first page that there is no solid data. Much of the rest uses faulty logic and contains no data. The second link (an abstract only without paying for access) speaks of the confidence level of doctors and nurses in identifying Child Abuse and Neglect and the third link, did you actually read it?, is mainly about the legal requirements and ethical duties of reporting. It actually says this:
quote:
It has been documented that mandatory reporting of child abuse and neglect is
effective in identifying cases that would otherwise have not been detected.
This bit is as close to what you are saying:
quote:
It is evident that the response to notifications is seriously lacking, and it is in
this respect that mandatory reporting has the potential to do harm
In other words, it is criticising the poor response as being the bit which is harmful.
Although, it does suggest that for psychology, it is possible to navigate a path between mandatory reporting and confidentiality. Even if this is accurate, it does not then imply this is true or even possible for every situation.
Whilst it is possible that there is data to back your claims, you have not yet shown it.
[ 16. December 2017, 03:57: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
Data, now? You really are breathtaking. You haven't provided anything to support your contentions, apart from the straw man of "hiding" abuse. You continue in the logical error that not mandating reporting is the same thing as hiding, with absolutely no justification.
No, you have got everything you are going to get from me. I'm not providing you anymore data or papers. Show up with your own support, and I will read it. Otherwise, I'm done talking to someone unwilling or unable to engage.
[ 16. December 2017, 07:24: Message edited by: Dark Knight ]
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Why do I bother?
This (from the third link) states as clear as day the point. quote:
It is evident that the response to notifications is seriously lacking, and it is in this respect that mandatory reporting has the potential to do harm. If a psychologist is mandated to make a notification about suspected child abuse, they can inform the child’s caregiver of the course of action they are required to take. This could result in the caregiver losing trust in the psychologist, the destruction of the therapeutic relationship, and ultimately the caregiver and child not returning for further treatment. If the notification is then screened as a NOC and no further action is taken by the child protection agency, then the process of mandated reporting has been of no benefit to, and indeed, has indirectly harmed the child, who could then be deprived of the opportunity to receive psychological intervention due to the caregiver’s loss of trust in the psychologist. Therefore, if mandatory reporting of child abuse and neglect is to be successful, a vast improvement in the management of notifications is essential.
Could mandatory reporting prevent abuse? Yes, but only if there is an improvement in the response to these reports. Which isn't happening. And so mandatory reporting is often not helping, and may even be hurting.
In short, it is not enough. That is the whole point. If you think that this is the same thing as justifying hiding abuse, then you are simply mistaken.
This is from the first link:
quote:
8. Melbourne based lawyer Moira Rayner is an outspoken opponent against
mandatory reporting for child abuse. Detailing the history of mandatory reporting
in the United States in 1963, she notes how mandatory reporting laws “became
more complex because of a misplaced belief that if such reports were publicised
resources to address the issues would be found.” Rayner goes on to claim that
“mandatory reporting can actually make the problems worse in a number of
ways” and further that “it makes the public feel better when they shouldn’t” and
“it does not guarantee a better outcome”. Rayner further claims that mandatory
reporting leads to a decline in support services because “money gets siphoned from services which support children to reports about children. Mandatory
reporting is expensive. No government maintains these systems well anywhere”
and alarmingly “it may discourage older, articulate children from reporting abuse
at all, fearing the consequences”
That is from paragraph 8 on the second page. The seventh paragraph contains some of the data you are seeking, demonstrating that mandatory reporting resulted in a massive increase in reporting, but less than half of the reports were substantiated.
In short, the links really don't say what you really want them to say. This is because you are wrong.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
You obviously feel strongly about this and it appears to be clouding how you interpret what you are reading.
I’ve made one point and that is not reporting/hiding is harmful. This is evident in the linked case I provided.
If there is a better way you have not provided it.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
Lb - that is exactly the opposite of what is happening.
You are the one misinterpreting these papers. And you are also the one who has mot supported a single thing you've posted.
Wake up.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
