Jump to content

Former Youth Protection Director on the dangers in Scouts BSA


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, NealOnWheels said:

But it can help in the future.  The sooner this can happen the better.

The principle of Ex Post Facto is so old and and entrenched I seriously doubt they will allow retroactive SOL changes for criminal law. That is a good thing because of broader implications. 

But I am on board with extending SOL to longer time frames and making punishment for rape and child molestation right behind that for murder. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 467
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I don't think anyone said that.  What they said is that we shouldn't just do weekly meetings and eliminate the outdoor program.  Honestly, scouting without an outdoor program is not scouting ... its s

I second all of that. Factor in this little story, as well. Add it to the consideration of “who [you] are dealing with” and “Don’t send your Eagle badge back to National. It does not seem to care.” Yo

Not replacing MJ with another external CSA expert is a disaster of a decision.  It is fueling the anger in each of these speeches.  If MJ wasn't working out, they should have hired a new CSA external

Posted Images

3 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

The principle of Ex Post Facto is so old and and entrenched I seriously doubt they will allow retroactive SOL changes for criminal law. That is a good thing because of broader implications. 

But I am on board with extending SOL to longer time frames and making punishment for rape and child molestation right behind that for murder. 

Murder has no statute of limitations. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

I’ve asked this before and will try again, since COs are implicated in all of this. Does anyone have a copy or substantive excerpts from the 1970’s agreements?

Not likely to find that. Document retention requirements were not as robust back then, and even the current strongest requirements would not require maintaining a document that long. 

But my understanding is that BSA started indemnifying CO's around '73 or '76 or so. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

Murder has no statute of limitations. 

True for 1st degree, but (I am going from memory for a college debate decades ago) Murder less than 1st degree did have a SOL in some states. 

In some states now, rape and sexual abuse of a minor (and other crimes) do not have a criminal SOL.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, HelpfulTracks said:

Do you think that people who have not had any criminal complaint should be included in what is put out publicly?

This is precisely the conundrum.

On the one hand, careers of the innocent accused would likely be ruined.  One legitimate reason for keeping things quiet.  But, why all those cases were not referred to law enforcement-well, I can only conclude BSA did not want the publicity.  I fault BSA for that, and that policy is the prime cause of this mess. And had every case been so referred, to some degree, at least, BSA would have had developed a reputation as hostile to perpetrators and perhaps a fair measure of these incidents would have been avoided.  And, I'll say, such accusations, if false and publicized by BSA raise a distinct possibility that the falsely accused will sue for defamation.  (Damages measured by salary, times number of years left in the accused's work life, plus benefits, and perhaps punitive damages, if permitted.)

How many cases are based on false accusations?  That children are able to report facts of which they would normally have no knowledge heavily favors their truthfulness.  As we have little data, we sit in the dark.

 

On the other hand, if the names of the ineligible volunteers are not made public, then volunteers are not able to self-police their units, and AGAIN will have to rely on some opaque process that failed so miserably to this point.  We  will all have to trust that someone, somehow, vetted the new volunteer arriving at a unit meeting.

 

Part of the problem, is that everyone presumes that a person is designated as ineligible due to CSA.  And that is likely the case for the vast majority, but there are political reasons also totally unrelated to CSA.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

True for 1st degree, but (I am going from memory for a college debate decades ago) Murder less than 1st degree did have a SOL in some states. 

In some states now, rape and sexual abuse of a minor (and other crimes) do not have a criminal SOL.

I would think it would be for any murder since it could not be determined to be 1st or 2nd degree without charges. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, skeptic said:

if even alive, have little to take, other than their freedom. 

Which, may be a deterrent.  (Though apparently abusers are not inclined to change their behavior.)

 

But it would get them out of the program.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, johnsch322 said:

I would think it would be for any murder since it could not be determined to be 1st or 2nd degree without charges. 

Depends on the state. Remember: some states have as much as "fourth degree murder", whereas another state would call that "involuntary manslaughter". The language matters from state to state.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Depends on the state. Remember: some states have as much as "fourth degree murder", whereas another state would call that "involuntary manslaughter". The language matters from state to state.

I just did a quick google search and it said murder has no statute of limitations.  Might have to do a deeper dive. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

This is precisely the conundrum.

On the one hand, careers of the innocent accused would likely be ruined.  One legitimate reason for keeping things quiet.  But, why all those cases were not referred to law enforcement-well, I can only conclude BSA did not want the publicity.  I fault BSA for that, and that policy is the prime cause of this mess. And had every case been so referred, to some degree, at least, BSA would have had developed a reputation as hostile to perpetrators and perhaps a fair measure of these incidents would have been avoided.  And, I'll say, such accusations, if false and publicized by BSA raise a distinct possibility that the falsely accused will sue for defamation.  (Damages measured by salary, times number of years left in the accused's work life, plus benefits, and perhaps punitive damages, if permitted.)

How many cases are based on false accusations?  That children are able to report facts of which they would normally have no knowledge heavily favors their truthfulness.  As we have little data, we sit in the dark.

On the other hand, if the names of the ineligible volunteers are not made public, then volunteers are not able to self-police their units, and AGAIN will have to rely on some opaque process that failed so miserably to this point.  We  will all have to trust that someone, somehow, vetted the new volunteer arriving at a unit meeting.

Part of the problem, is that everyone presumes that a person is designated as ineligible due to CSA.  And that is likely the case for the vast majority, but there are political reasons also totally unrelated to CSA.

I agree it is a conundrum. 

At this point I believe most state laws require reporting of CSA. So the authorities should at least know, but if that gets prosecuted, or even charged is up to the legal system. So hopefully, that is how things are working now and going forward. One would think that investigations are not public until charges are filed, but I'm sure that is not always the case. 

You are correct that everyone assumes IVF means CSA, it does not. I have heard estimates as high as 80% are not CSA. Based on my experience that sounds very plausible. 

In todays technological world, it should not be difficult to collect identity information and when a IVF Scouter tries to register then they are rejected. Not sure how you handle it when they are "just parents" that show up at meetings but never go on over nights. Some of the CO's I know require registration for overnights, which I favor, though it has disproportionate impact on economically disadvantaged. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HelpfulTracks said:

But I am on board with extending SOL to longer time frames and making punishment for rape and child molestation right behind that for murder. 

I remember when that was the law.  Rape, child abuse, and murder could be punished by the death penalty in my state.  It resulted in less reporting from what we understand presumably because of the stiff penalties.  This is just to say that there can be ramifications to stiffer penalties.

Additionally, the removal of SOL has other ramifications.  I earned my Eagle in the late 1960's.  If I claimed abuse during that time, there are none of the adults to support or refute my claims as they are all dead.  It becomes more difficult to find justice.  This is not to say that extending the SOL is not a good thing but it likewise has ramifications.  

These are thorny issues where I do not see absolutes but rather trade-offs.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, johnsch322 said:

I would think it would be for any murder since it could not be determined to be 1st or 2nd degree without charges. 

 

59 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Depends on the state. Remember: some states have as much as "fourth degree murder", whereas another state would call that "involuntary manslaughter". The language matters from state to state.

This  ^^^

I think it is fairly standard across states that murder 1 requires premeditation. 

After that it seems to be a hodge podge of murder classifications, felony classifications, special circumstances etc. 

Some have no SOL on lesser classifications (or didn't) and some do. Same goes for various crimes, rape, sexual assault, even arson. 

Edited by HelpfulTracks
tired and said something backwards - corrected
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

On the one hand, careers of the innocent accused would likely be ruined.  One legitimate reason for keeping things quiet.  But, why all those cases were not referred to law enforcement-well, I can only conclude BSA did not want the publicity.  I fault BSA for that, and that policy is the prime cause of this mess. And had every case been so referred, to some degree, at least, BSA would have had developed a reputation as hostile to perpetrators and perhaps a fair measure of these incidents would have been avoided.  And, I'll say, such accusations, if false and publicized by BSA raise a distinct possibility that the falsely accused will sue for defamation.  (Damages measured by salary, times number of years left in the accused's work life, plus benefits, and perhaps punitive damages, if permitted.)

Please understand that in the 1960's and, I presume before, reports of child abuse where oftentimes blamed on the child and not the abuser - seems impossible now.  Also, if one referred a case to the police and there was no conviction, there was the possibility of the council being sued for slander.  Protection for reporters was not common until the late 1980's and mandatory reporting was not common until the 1990's.  The world has changed in many ways since the 1950's when I was born.  In many ways, the USA is very different in very many ways.

This is just to say that the local councils could not have just reported a possible child abuse case to the police and stepped back afterwards with no possibility of adverse actions as is the case now.  The belief in the validity of a child's story was questioned unless an adult said that the event happened.  The local councils had reasons for doing what they did.  Maybe good and perhaps not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My two cents....  I sat there watching the presser today with mixed feelings.  Survivors, of which I am one, need to know they are not alone and that what happened to them could have been prevented.  We need to feel that it wasn't our fault.  We need to know that we're being heard and believed.  We want to feel like things will change and what happened to us won't happen to another.  Mr. Johnson's comments and obvious grief aided all of those.  But at the same time I couldn't help but remember that his comments came after he had been let go and a bit over a year since he publicly defended the policies he oversaw.  I couldn't help but think about the 627 claimants who are now a part of this bankruptcy because they were victims of abuse during the years of his employment, or how many others hadn't come forward because we know this is so hard for younger people to do so.  I'm hopeful this will create change.  I'm hopeful Congress will take notice as it has with USA Gymnastics and other Olympians.  I'm hopeful that this will help bring about changes in bankruptcy laws.  I'm hopeful that the TCC will present a plan that takes abuse prevention MUCH more seriously than the current one does.  But there's still a part of me that wants to say "Thank you Mr. Johnson, but I wish you hadn't waited a decade to speak up."

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SiouxRanger said:

This is precisely the conundrum.

On the one hand, careers of the innocent accused would likely be ruined.  One legitimate reason for keeping things quiet.  

Yes it can destroy the innocent. I know someone who was cleared of any wrongdoing, but is still in the IVF. And it did affect her reputation in the community.

 

1 hour ago, SiouxRanger said:

 

Part of the problem, is that everyone presumes that a person is designated as ineligible due to CSA.  And that is likely the case for the vast majority, but there are political reasons also totally unrelated to CSA.

Yep know another individual in the IVF because he questioned the SE on some issues.

 

So yes, not everyone in the IVF is in it for CSA, nor guilty if accused of CSA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...