BSA fails to report abuser - LA Times, CBC

[Beavah 205]

Yah, hmmmm....

 

This is one of those areas where some prudence is required.

 

There's a reason for statutes of limitations, eh? And they are particularly important for this sort of crime, where da accusation itself is so often taken as "proof".

 

Imagine if, right now, a man of age 37 accuses you as a scouter of molesting him back when he was a boy. He's "repressed" da memory until now (in depression, alcohol and substance abuse, etc.), but he remembered when driving through the old neighborhood and seeing your expensive house.

 

How do yeh defend yourself? Do yeh still have your campout and permission slip records from 20 or more years ago? Remember what happened on Saturday night at the Polar Bear campout in 1986? How many of da potential defense witnesses are still alive? Can still be located?

 

There is a balance in these things, because not everyone who is accused is guilty, eh? It was dumb luck that da fellow who accused the former Catholic bishop of Chicago was found out, because some secretary somewhere kept the bishop's travel itinerary from many years before and the accuser was caught in the lie because da bishop had been out of town during the alleged incidents. Yeh don't want your life and reputation as a scouter to depend on da dumb luck of keeping 20+ year old records.

 

These crimes are terrible. But so is convicting or levying a judgment against an innocent man or woman for this sort of thing. Statutes of limitations balance the rights of the accused in a case where the accusation, by itself, is devastating.

 

Beavah

 

[Mr. Boyce 13]

I am kind of partial to the idea of having a guy on your troop committee who is an enforcer, say a confident, in-shape, ex-Marine who is up for the idea of taking various offenders "out back" for a "serious talking-to" with a helpful piece of lumber.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Your right, might makes right and physical intimadation is the way to go, expecting people to live up to their promise of following the rules and the expectation that membership will be denied if you dont follow the rules is way to mature for anyone to actually suscribe to

 

Yes, I am angry about this

 

[RememberSchiff 3687]

Thanks Engineer61. That site you provided referenced the Reform the Statute of Limitations on Child Sexual Abuse website http://www.sol-reform.com which had a 50 state civil and criminal charts listing statute of limitations for child sexual abuse crimes.

 

http://www.sol-reform.com/images/sol_civil.pdf

http://www.sol-reform.com/images/sol_criminal.pdf

 

Quite of mixture from no statute of limitations to a little as 4 years for a criminal complaint.

 

Another $0.02

 

[Beavah 205]

Yah, I'm not sure what this thread is about anymore...

 

The late 1970s was a different time in a lot of ways. The sentiment was to trust authority, and also not to "expose" a victim who wanted to remain private. Workplace sexual harassment wasn't yet an issue.

 

Da chronology here is interestin'. The fellow abused at least one kid in Canada for years, takin' the boy to his apartment instead of to Cub meetings (nobody ever noticed??). Then, not as a scout leader, he kidnaps a boy and steals a plane in California and is released on probation... with no follow-up by the state. Not sure why da BSA is to blame for that. The State of California probation system apparently made no effort to notify Canada nor to ensure he met da terms of his probation, which allowed him to sneak off and sign up as a BSA Camp Director. Remember, back then there weren't computers, and criminal background checks were difficult, rare, and easy to spoof. Where was da probation officer?

 

He molests three lads after/outside of regular camp time, and the parents don't press charges. That was da way of things back then, and no county prosecutor was goin' to pursue a case where the victims wouldn't agree to file a complaint. So again, not da BSA's fault. They did what they could and started a file to try to keep him out of Scouting in da U.S.

 

Then he goes back to Canada, where Scouts Canada still isn't aware of his previous molestation. I'm not sure what Scouts Canada or da BSA was supposed to do here. Was the BSA supposed to call every Scouts Canada troop and warn 'em? Remember, they're not as centralized as we are. Was Scouts Canada supposed to run a criminal background check in every province and U.S. State (remember, there weren't central registries back then)?

 

The lad he molests in Canada is spending 3-4 nights every week at this fellow's house. Where in da world are the parents? How is Scouts Canada supposed to know this fer cryin' out loud? It's all happening outside of scouting time. Eventually he did enough questionable stuff on trips that they pushed him out, but none of da stuff on trips seemed to amount to abuse, so it wasn't like it was clear-cut from their perspective.

 

Yah, in hindsight, had da parents in 1979 opted to press charges then someone would have figured out the fellow was supposedly still on probation and he would have gone to prison for a stretch. Then he still probably would have gone back to Canada and abused more boys. Leastways, if he survived prison.

 

These cases are tragic, but I'm just not sure what da scouting folks were supposed to do. The biggest failures here seem to be of da criminal justice system and the parents.

 

This does point to why YP rules don't protect kids, though. True to the pattern, all of the abuse mentioned in this article happened outside of regular scouting, where other adults weren't present and scouting rules just didn't apply. The fellow used his association with scouting to earn trust, for sure, but did not clearly break any scouting rules while servin' as a scout leader.

 

That's why it's silly to go after "rulebreakers" like JoeBob, who have the audacity to take kids aboard an old warship for a sleepover in what amounts to one big room. That's never goin' to be a site or location of abuse. Abusers isolate kids, eh? Hanging partitions up all over da place to hide behind likely increases da opportunities for bad behavior compared with just sharin' a room with 50 people.

 

In real life, yeh want to be somewhat mindful as parents and fellow leaders about what sort of contact is goin' on outside of scouting and other people, and yeh especially want every kid to have lots of people involved in his life as friends and mentors of all ages so that he can't be isolated by a predator.

 

Beavah

 

[Engineer61 19]

"Was the BSA supposed to call every Scouts Canada troop and warn 'em?"

 

No...but BSA could have called Scouts Canada at the top however.

 

What would have happened then? Most likely nothing.

[Engineer61 19]

"In real life, yeh want to be somewhat mindful as parents and fellow leaders"

 

Hmmm....or more directly, perhaps as parents and leaders we have to assume that some portion of the adults involved with Scouting are pedophiles and because we cannot readily identify them, everyone has to be suspect.

 

Parents and Leaders have to become more aggressive with questioning actions a motives.

 

My wife recently told me of a Adult application her troop received from an Eagle who is in a local university. He had not been a Scout in our troop ... they discussed his application and credentials and went silent ... after several moments of staring at each other, my wife finally said, "OK, I'll say what is on everyone's mind ... Why would a kid in college, with all the activities, workload and what not available to him want to be involved in a Troop that he's not been around; want to help us?"

 

After a collective sigh from the room, they rejected his application.

 

Should that decision be sent to District?

[RememberSchiff 3687]

For me, the point of the thread was what can be done now to bring past BSA child abusers to justice. Personally I feel the BSA will use the same stonewall, Cover Your Assets approach as the Catholic Church with the same (or worse) negative consequences. There may be a way to atone and turn this around.*

 

As to 70's abuse awareness...Neighborhood Watch started after the Kitty Genovese murder in mid 60's. That was another tragic case of people failing to respond to another being victimized.

 

In 1974, the federal Child Abuse and Treatment Act (CAPTA) was enacted which funded many state protection program. At this time, most states started mandatory child abuse reporting laws. "Mandatory" in that there was a list of people required to report child abuse or neglect - school personnel, medical professionals, police, child care providers,... report as in drop a dime and call the police or Child Protective Services, not write a memo in a notebook and put on a shelf.

 

And I think the crime dog McGruff came along in late 70's to take a bite out of crime.

 

 

*Note: Since the Father Porter case twenty years ago and all the Catholic Church missteps since, I and other scouters have been unable to start any unit at our town Catholic Church. The parents, all Catholics (current, lapsed, former), will NOT support it. Form a unit anywhere else. End of discussion. Period.

 

Another 0.01,(This message has been edited by RememberSchiff)

[JoeBob 606]

RememberSchiff,

 

I think you may have answered your own question.

 

If you really are wondering "what can be done now to bring past BSA child abusers to justice,"

is it any wonder that

"The parents, all Catholics (current, lapsed, former), will NOT support ... start(ing) any unit at our town Catholic Church."

 

Mayhap they've reached their tolerance for muck-raking?

 

(I'm CM of a Catholic School pack, so I'm aware of the intricacies involved.)

[Beavah 205]

In 1974, the federal Child Abuse and Treatment Act (CAPTA) was enacted which funded many state protection program. At this time, most states started mandatory child abuse reporting laws. "Mandatory" in that there was a list of people required to report child abuse or neglect - school personnel, medical professionals, police, child care providers,... report as in drop a dime and call the police or Child Protective Services, not write a memo in a notebook and put on a shelf.

 

Yah, hmmm....

 

Just to be clear for everyone.

 

A stranger, coach, or scouter who molests a kid is NOT "child abuse" as defined by CAPTA and da laws of most of the states. It's some form of sexual battery. Child abuse is somethin' that a parent or guardian does to a kid. Mandatory reporting laws historically, and still in most cases, apply only to child abuse, and in most states still apply only to those professionals who are in a unique position to be able to assess quality of parenting - teachers, physicians, social workers, etc.

 

There is longstanding jurisprudence that citizens are not required by law to intervene in or report crimes. Certainly we would consider it good citizenship to do so, but requiring people to report on their family, friends, neighbors, particularly when there are only suspicions, is somethin' that is only done in dictatorial regimes.

 

So at no point in da case in question did the BSA ever violate either the letter or the intent of the law as it stood at da time, or even as it stands now. The issue of pressing charges was, and is, a parent one.

 

I know da natural reaction of us Americans to anything bad that happens is to try to find someone to blame. Blame da perpetrators, people. In this case, blame da parole system that let the fellow out with no follow-up if yeh must. But expectin' that any organization can magically prevent this stuff is nuts.

 

Engineer61, abuse by relatives is far more common than abuse by coaches/teachers/scouters/ministers all together. Your wife would be more productive banning uncles and grandparents and cousins from your home than keepin' a young adult Eagle Scout from helping with a troop.

 

Beavah

 

[perdidochas 658]

Engineer61,

 

I think the troop lost out on a valuable resource by rejecting the college student as ASM. Now, if he weren't a former Eagle or at least First Class, I would probably agree.

[Engineer61 19]

Beavah wrote:

 

"There is longstanding jurisprudence that citizens are not required by law to intervene in or report crimes."

 

That is not the case in Arizona ... I don't know if other states have adopted similar statutes...

 

The Mandatory Reporting Law of the State of Arizona

 

Any person who reasonably believes that a minor is or has been the victim of

physical injury, abuse, child abuse, a reportable offense or neglect that appears

to have been inflicted on the minor by other than accidental meansshall

immediately report or cause reports to be made of this information to a peace

officer or to Child Protective Services in the Department of Economic Security,

except if the report concerns a person who does not have care, custody or

control of the minor, the report shall be made to a peace officer only.

(Arizona Revised Statute 13-3620)

 

So, in Arizona, there is NO option but to report to the authorities any "reasonable belief" of abuse of a minor.

[Engineer61 19]

Peri ...

 

Maybe ... maybe the troop avoid a peck of trouble.

 

Better to be cautious now that apologetic later.

 

Sign of the times folks ... just have to get used to it.

[Engineer61 19]

Here is a summary of the state-by-state mandatory reporting statues...

 

 

http://www.rainn.org/public-policy/legal-resources/mandatory-reporting-database

[Beavah 205]

Yah, Engineer61, but we're not talkin' about modern Arizona law in this case, eh? We're talkin' about California law 30 years ago.

 

Besides, yeh shouldn't mess with a Beavah when you're swimmin' in his pond. Da law isn't like da Bible, eh? Yeh need to understand context and terminology before yeh quote it. Legislators and legal types don't use English da same way that most of da rest of the world does.

 

In da case of the Arizona statute, the part yeh left out matters a lot, eh? It reads "For the purposes of this subsection, "person" means 1. Any physician, physician's assistant, optometrist, dentist, osteopath, chiropractor, podiatrist, behavioral health professional, nurse, psychologist, counselor or social worker who develops the reasonable belief in the course of treating a patient; 2. Any peace officer, member of the clergy, priest or christian science practitioner; 3. The parent, stepparent or guardian of the minor; 4. School personnel or domestic violence victim advocate who develop the reasonable belief in the course of their employment." (ARS 13-3620A)

 

That's why da information pages your Arizona Department of Economic Security post on their site say essentially da same thing as I said earlier. Arizona does not require any citizen to report.

 

Here's a better source for a summary than the advocacy group Engineer61 linked to. Yeh still have to be a bit careful about da language, but the presentation is more forthright and objective.

 

http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/manda.cfm

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)