Dealing with "Old" Abuse Issues

[skeptic 993]

While few here would likely say the methods in place 25+ years ago to deal with abuse accusations, verified, or only allegations, were correct, they were pretty much what "was done" in the majority of cases then.

 

So, how do we deal with judgment of these issues more than a quarter century later? We can scream and holler all we want about how atrociously these cases were handled, but the fingers then need to be pointed at "society in general", as they were just as guilty of the how authorities and institutions reacted because they refused to support the few cases that actually came to public awareness. Even when someone was convicted, which was pretty rare, the charges were often reduced, and the penalties were slaps on the wrist. Certainly there were no public records shared nationwide by the government. The scouts files that are now the center of such controversy may very well have actually been ahead of their time.

 

Do we have to go back and open every rape case that was swept under the carpet because of the attitudes of the time? Should we go back and dig up "all the dirt possible" on any and all public figures that were just ignored or "made go away"?

 

People often refused to press charges, for who knows what reason. Sometimes it was ignorance, surely; but it was often the knowledge that actually getting someone prosecuted and found guilty was very difficult, and it opened the victims up to public embarrassment at least, and often ridicule or worse.

 

So, can we really make completely fair judgments on things from the past, using standards of today? Should we, especially if all the individuals in position of decision at the time, such as family, institutional leaders, or legal authorities felt it should not be done? And, if we do, should it be taken to the extremes of possibly destroying good institutions and well meaning, though misguided (based on today's views)individuals; and enrich individuals with questionable ethics themselves?

 

 

(This message has been edited by skeptic)(This message has been edited by skeptic)

[shortridge 184]

Yah, skeptic, it doesn't matter what "society in general" thought. We're not talking about the 1800s vs the 2000s. In this case, we're talking about the difference between the 1970s, when Turley abused those boys, and the 1990s, when BSA began running background checks on employees.

 

The policies in place back then were designed to protect the institution rather than the individual. We hold ourselves out as the advocates of "timeless values." What value was the BSA promoting in the 1970s when it swept the Turley case under the rug?

 

That council violated the first item of the Scout Law - trust - when it hired a convicted felon and "mentally disordered sex offender" as a BSA summer camp program director. When he molested more boys, the BSA cared enough to open a confidential file - but not report it to police. It had nothing to do with the "attitudes of the time," as skeptic suggests. It had to do with covering their butts.

 

As the former executive said in the LAT story: "Hopefully he went back to Canada and that was their problem." In the educational world, this is known as "passing the trash" - making a bad teacher someone else's problem. And it is as indefensible today as it was back then. (But I'm sure someone will try.)

 

Sunlight is always the best disinfectant.(This message has been edited by shortridge)

[skeptic 993]

Shortridge; please try reading what I asked, rather than suggest that I think the policies of the time were right.

[shortridge 184]

Skeptic, I answered the questions you posed: "So, can we really make completely fair judgments on things from the past, using standards of today? Should we, especially if all the individuals in position of decision at the time, such as family, institutional leaders, or legal authorities felt it should not be done?"

 

The answer is clearly yes. This is not ancient history or a different culture. This is a difference of at most 20 years. Nowhere did I suggest that you thought those policies were right.

 

And while I'm at it, here's an answer to another of your questions: "Do we have to go back and open every rape case that was swept under the carpet because of the attitudes of the time?"

 

I have a novel idea. While some of the information in its files is false or unverified - rumors and tips - the BSA undoubtedly knows which of its former volunteers have been convicted in courts of law of sex abuse crimes. Match up those cases to the files, and release them. The people have been convicted; they're not innocents. This would protect the people who were victims of simply nasty rumor.

 

If the BSA did nothing wrong, then it should be proud to show the world how it handled those cases in which its volunteers and employees were convicted.

[packsaddle 753]

Today our Sunday paper (the one that almost everyone actually reads each week) had a really big article on this case and the Boy Scouts of America's Pervert File. Stuff like this doesn't exactly cover BSA with glory, does it?

 

So I'm wondering, was there a section of "The Peter Principle" that I missed in which large organizations tend to become delusional to the point that they think the best way to handle things like this is to keep it 'in house' or sweep it under the rug, or they think maybe they're too big to fail?

 

I guess it HAS worked for the banks, if dollars are all that are involved, but I wonder, did the people at BSA really think this stuff would never bubble up to the surface?

Did the Catholic Church hierarchy think this stuff would never bubble up to the surface?

Well...I guess if your organization and hierarchy is organized along the lines of, say, North Korea or maybe the government of Libya a few months ago, it does work. What exactly does that say about BSA or the Catholic Church?

[CalicoPenn 729]

Just because the folks in the BSA at the time thought it was the best way to handle the situation doesn't mean it was the best way to handle the situation at the time. I have no problem with reviewing it with a 2011 lens because I don't think the lens is truly different from a 1985 lens. I seem to recall back in the 80's, there was a great deal of societal interest in cases such as these. Witness the McMartin preschool trials as just one example. Frankly, the cover-up is as much of a crime as the original crimes - and was as much of a crime even back then.

 

Murder has no statute of limitations, presumably because it doesn't matter if the murder was committed in the 1930's or in 2011 and murder is just as wrong now as it was then. I don't see any compelling evidence to suggest that the crime of rape or or molestation is any more or less wrong then as it is now.

 

Society in general did not call for the cover-up of molestation cases, ala the Catholic Church or the BSA. Had you asked society back then if they would approve of such methods, the answer would come back with as strong a no as it does now. We can't blame society in general for the missteps, mistakes and outright arrogant negligence of the powers that be in the BSA at the time.

 

All that this has accomplished is yet another public relations black eye for the BSA. Until Packsaddle's post, I would have suggested it was limited to the Seattle area, but now it's getting wider play. People aren't going to care that this took place 25+ years ago - they're going to wonder why it took so long for the BSA to do the right thing in the first place, and they're going to wonder why it took a court of law to force the BSA to do the right thing. New parents, as they start reading about this case, are going to be wondering if the BSA is still operating in this manner and wondering if they can really trust the BSA when they say they handle things much differently now.

 

The BSA needs to get in front of this now - not use the "it happened 25 years ago excuse" and dig in the way the Catholic Church did for a time. They need to learn from the battering the Catholic Church took, and state that mistakes were made, it was the wrong thing to do, trust was violated, and apologize profusely while promising that it will never happen again and put in to place transparancy to ensure that it never does. If they're smart, they'll investigate on a nationwide level, as the Catholic Church did, to uncover and identify any other coverups that may have occured elsewhere.

 

 

[Scoutfish 16]

BSA could come out loking good, if not spectacular.

 

BSA could very well have a few people do just what shortridge says: Compare convited to files and make a nice neat package to give to whatever unit of authority handles that kind of thing wether FBI, SBI, local SVU , etc..

 

Then hire a PR firm to come up with the scripty or theme of a national broadcast, or on line broadcast or even a 20/20 interview where BSA can say somethiung along the lines of:

 

"Just as you, the everydy people, keep mental notes of everybody you know, we too kept notes of our leaders. Sometimes people do something - that in itself - is nothing to raise an eyebrow to, but if it's a repeated cycle, then you have a history to make a better judgement about. We do it with almost everybody we know.

 

You are not sure about the guy at the store, the garage, the post office. You keep mental tabs on him. BSA kept written tabs.

 

Of course, over time as we get to know these people better, we realize our "tabs" were wrong sometimes, and right others.

 

 

So, just because you kept tabs on somebody does not mean ther were actually doing anything wrong or guilty. Likewise, sometimes people have done atrociius things, and you had no clue. You might think trhat gal or guy might stael candy from a coffee table, but you'd never expect them to rob a bank."

 

So, BSA has a black eye, but they could keep it to a black eye if they did it right

 

Like shortridge said: give copies of any info of convicted people to the authorities, and the ones who did nothing can be trashed or destryed if it turns out all the suspicions were unfounded.

 

And it could be announced that they were unfounded and destryed as to not tarnish any innocent person's reputation.

[Eamonn 61]

Have to admit that I'm not really sure where I am on all of this.

When it comes down to doing or not doing what is right?

The person I need to deal with first and foremost is myself.

Sounds kinda easy, but at times it's not.

While I can see, hear and know that something isn't right. There are times when there can be pressure to allow this wrong (Something that's not right) To slid.

Which is in it self also wrong.

Much as I hate to admit it. When I witness something that I know isn't right, my first concern isn't so much about fixing the wrong, but more about covering my own tail.

At work just to cover my own tail I will report and document things that I know are wrong, not so much in the hope that whatever it is /was will be addressed but just so if and when something hits the fan I can excuse myself from blame.

Even if I know when I report something, I know in my heart of hearts that nothing is going to happen. I try to convince myself that I've at least done my bit and can't be blamed for being complacent.

 

Having been raised as Roman Catholic, I was both saddened and shocked with the sex scandals that went on in my church.

Shocked because I didn't want to ever believe that the men I'd looked up to all my life could and were in fact guilty of doing these horrible and nasty things, shocked because people knew that they were doing this sort of thing and allowing it to continue.

I think I can forgive a fellow human for doing something wrong, but have a much harder time forgiving an organization that covers up the wrong doing.

When victims of the abuse in my church started winning large amounts of money to compensate them for what had happened to them. I'll admit that I did feel this was maybe an opening of the flood gates and every Tom, Dick and Harry would be making a claim of having been abused.

Part of me did want to try and lay the blame at the feet of those who had or maybe had? Been abused.

However as it came to light that the cover up had not just been a pal or a friend covering for another pal or friend, but reached to the very top, the people who not only were aware of what was going on but also going to great lengths to cover up the wrong. My faith in the people at the top was very badly shaken.

In my little world, I can see how an individual can give into his or her personal temptation be it abuse of others or driving drunk. I just don't get how others feel that they need to cover things up.

Recently it came to light that a State Policeman had been caught driving drunk, but someone had tried to cover it up.

I understand the guy having one too many, I don't understand the cover up.

It does seem that the BSA knew and was aware that some people were doing things that were wrong.

I deal with people on a daily basis who have done wrong and bad things. Some of these wrongs were done a very long time ago. The fact that they were caught, convicted and may have already served a good many years in jail for what they did doesn't ever make what they did any less wrong.

I don't believe that just because someone wasn't or hasn't been caught for the wrong they did makes them any different than the guy who was caught.

As for the organization?

It also knew what it was doing by allowing and covering up the wrong was not the right thing to do and is guilty.

This cover up is for me a very big thing by not acting on what it knew, by not doing the right thing it needs to be held accountable for what it did do and what it failed to do.

My big hope is of course that this will prevent churches, organizations and the like from trying to cover things up in the future.

Eamonn.

[skeptic 993]

As Eamonn indicates, there is much that is not black or white, since most of the info is still not in the light. So, how does it get examined? Should BSA today, put together a team of individuals, both from within and without the organization to cull through the files and determine which ones were not dealt with as they should have been? What might be discovered by bringing it all out?

 

To me, that is what they should do, as I too do not feel that trying to keep it in the shadows serves any purpose. On the other hand, the material needs to be handled very carefully, so as to not destroy people with innuendo without real proof. Families involved would need to be willing to open their specific experiences, and if they choose to not do so, it should be kept private. Cases that may have indication of having been presented to authorities and turned away need to also be determined, as do cases where the victims or their responsible caretakers made the decision to not press the case.

 

As already suggested by some, bring it to light, determine where egregiously poor decisions were made, and at what levels, then make every effort to continue to improve the current program and procedures to make any future occurrence of these types of things as unlikely as possible. And, if they do happen, immediately turn it over to authorities outside the program.

 

What should not happen, in my opinion, is to have the information made available to reporters and lawyers with questionable ethics "carte blanc", or to publicize things without permission of the victims and their families.

 

But the issue will not go away, nor will it get any better if National chooses to continue to stonewall it. It is entirely possible that they are already working on the best way to handle these files, and their fallout. It needs to be a rational and open approach, rather than a panicked or emotional one.

 

Meantime, we still need to do our own part and work within the system to give the best parts of the program to our scouts, and not be part of the problem by burning effigies and making accusations that we cannot support.

 

So, can we keep this discussion within bounds, and constructive, rather than hysterical and accusatory? And that goes for me too.

 

(This message has been edited by skeptic)

[shortridge 184]

What BSA should do depends on its goals here.

 

I've long since given up on the hope that its goal is to expose and bring to justice former Scouters who committed crimes against Scouts and actually make reports to law enforcement authorities. Irving has had the opportunity to so every year for the last 100, and has repeatedly chosen to hide and cover its derriere.

 

If its goal is to look good, then it could do any number of things with its files, with special attention to victims' needs and desires, however.

 

skeptic: I'll stop being accusatory toward the former Scouting executives who covered up the rape and sexual abuse of Scouts if you stop being accusatory toward attorneys who sue the BSA on behalf of victims by questioning their motives and ethics. Deal?(This message has been edited by shortridge)

[skeptic 993]

Shortridge: I will accept the likelihood that "some" executives were more concerned about "ass covering" than what was important, and would suggest that you admit there are some attorneys that are simply out for finding the biggest paydays and could care less about much else.

 

[Scoutfish 16]

I'll agree with both of you:

 

Executives were only in a CYA mode and didn't tale advantage of many oppertunities to do the right thing.......

 

AND.......

 

Lawyers are 99.0 % concerned only with collecting a fee....

 

BUT....... They are doing what they are supposed to do even if their motive is more about CA$H that justice.

 

The questions the lawyers ask are indeed legit even if the reason they ask isn't.

 

In the ned, lawyers who are now chasing BSA wouldn't have to if BSA did the right thing to begin with.

 

Now, those who jump on the bandwagon and hire lawyers for trumped up cases and false accusations just so they can get a $$$ settlement? They are their own issue.

[nldscout 18]

They could have dealt with this years ago by simply shredding those files and being done with them.

[WAKWIB 107]

The "old" abuse cases will continue to resurface and BSA will continue to spend all the popcorn money defending ourselves in court. Too little, to late. The chickens have come home to roost.

YPT for adults is excellent, but what about YPT for the Scouts.

 

Molestation seldom occurs at a meeting or campout. It's more often off-site with one-on-one contact that has often be approved by the parents.

 

Kids NEED to be trained how to recognize this stuff before they find themselves at the point of no return.

 

Sadly, showing the YPT videos to our Scouts is not done with much frequency. The leaders are not comfortable with it. They would rather sweep the notion under the rug. Not much has changed since the days of the "old" cases in that respect.

 

I can only hope the when the stuff hits the fan, Councils really follow-up and treat it as a serious legal issue in the present instead of trying to do damage control and let others deal with it in future decades. And I would hope that BSA would place a far greater emphasis on training our youth to be prepared to recognize, resist and report abuse.

[Eagle92 110]

WAKIB,

 

One reason why leaders may not show the videos is b/c of complaints about the videos. Way back in the day, one of the things we did was a health awareness day for Cubs that was put on by the local nursing school. It covered all the health topics in the various books, and overall was a hit. BUT the #1 station that got the most complaints was the YP video for the Cubs. I had a lot of parents complain, even though we told them in advance what the video was on.