Law The Trump administration is officially moving to overturn a law that requires clergy to report child sexual abuse, saying it violates priests' constit

[jefferz]

Didn't the Supreme Court ruled that police has no duty to protect? so at best these other professions leads to either getting fired or losing your license.

But since priests are not employed by government or you don't need a license to practice a religion, they decided to go with criminal prosecution?

Its got to be the most stupid law i have read in a while.

You're right, this is a stupid law. It shouldn't be required in the first place.

The Catholic Church has forced this onto themselves. We all know the horror stories of the rampant abuse the Catholic Church has committed against children across the globe for decades, and the lengths they have gone to cover it up.
Enough is enough. It's time to stop the Catholic Church from protecting people who hurt children.

 

[DoctorTaco]

I wouldn't piss on the Vatican if it was on fire, but I believe no priest can break the Seal of Confession unless given dispensation by the Pope himself. Any priest who breaks the vow of confessor, no matter what the reason, gets the Full John Wick - Excommunication.

@Deorum you're our expert on Voodoo, am I right?

Oh, and for the record - fuck Trump and anyone else who tries to run interference for those who abuse children. Whatever their religion.

I understand their rule, the argument here is weather or not a religious leader can have knowledge of one of the worst crimes humans can perpetrate and not tell anyone bc they learned about it in their little box

 

[GreatSaintGuillotine]

People really openly support this law...and claim to care about child safety. America is dying

 

[Madmick]

Didn't the Supreme Court ruled that police has no duty to protect? so at best these other professions leads to either getting fired or losing your license.

But since priests are not employed by government or you don't need a license to practice a religion, they decided to go with criminal prosecution?

Its got to be the most stupid law i have read in a while.

This was my immediate reaction, but when I remembered therapists are under this onus, and they are private practitioners, I thought perhaps that was precedent to justify it. The articles didn't even clarify what the consequences of a failure are to report are. The law was linked in the OP's article:

RCW 26.44.030: Reports—Duty and authority to make—Duty of receiving agency—Duty to notify—Case planning and consultation—Penalty for unauthorized exchange of information—Filing dependency petitions—Investigations—Interviews of children—Records—Risk a

app.leg.wa.gov

I'll have to look over it later, at a glance, it may not be incriminating this at all, but only triggering a government report be filed when the government discovers the Priest failed to report the crime. So it may not be as serious as I initially thought.

*Edit*

I found this link in the OP's article.

RCW 26.44.030​

(1)(a) When any practitioner, county coroner or medical examiner, law enforcement officer, professional school personnel, registered or licensed nurse, social service counselor, psychologist, pharmacist, employee of the department of children, youth, and families, licensed or certified child care providers or their employees, employee of the department of social and health services, juvenile probation officer, placement and liaison specialist, responsible living skills program staff, HOPE center staff, state family and children's ombuds or any volunteer in the ombuds's office, or host home program has reasonable cause to believe that a child has suffered abuse or neglect, he or she shall report such incident, or cause a report to be made, to the proper law enforcement agency or to the department as provided in RCW 26.44.040.

RCW 26.44.030: Reports—Duty and authority to make—Duty of receiving agency—Duty to notify—Case planning and consultation—Penalty for unauthorized exchange of information—Filing dependency petitions—Investigations—Interviews of children—Records—Risk a

app.leg.wa.gov

I found this on the Google.

RCW 26.44.080

Violation​

Every person who is required to make, or to cause to be made, a report pursuant to RCW 26.44.030 and 26.44.040, and who knowingly fails to make, or fails to cause to be made, such report, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

RCW 26.44.080: Violation—Penalty.

app.leg.wa.gov

Yeah, I just saw that when I came back. I'll read it in full, later.

 

[Rod1]

So what's the magical line? If your buddy commits a crime in your presence and you go along, but don't do anything and also don't turn him in, it's aiding and abetting, isn't it?

Is it though? or are there other factors in real life scenarios that separate aiding and abetting from just being a witness to a crime.

If he tells you after the fact and you say nothing, you're off the hook. Sounds dumb to me.

If he tells you after the fact you are indeed off the hook because its quite likely you had absolutely nothing to do with the crime if you were unaware of it.

I don't see any problem with that, do you?

Yes i have a problem with it, if you are effectively a bystander, because you aren't even giving a guideline of what separates "reasonable belief".

 

[joy2day]

Didn't the Supreme Court ruled that police has no duty to protect? so at best these other professions leads to either getting fired or losing your license.

But since priests are not employed by government or you don't need a license to practice a religion, they decided to go with criminal prosecution?

Its got to be the most stupid law i have read in a while.

You again have zero idea what you are talking about. ALL mandated reporters can face criminal penalties for not reporting.

 

[Rod1]

You're right, this is a stupid law. It shouldn't be required in the first place.

Thanks so we agree on that.

 

[Rod1]

You again have zero idea what you are talking about. ALL mandated reporters can face criminal penalties for not reporting.

If they cover it up? sure, if they derelict their duties? not really.

 

[Rod1]

I think the things mandatory reporters are required to report is sufficient enough.

Cool, but if you establish precedent that the State can force religious people to act as State surveillance you are opening a big can of worms.

 

[joy2day]

This was my immediate reaction, but when I remembered therapists are under this onus, and they are private practitioners, I thought perhaps that was precedent to justify it. The articles didn't even clarify what the consequences of a failure are to report are. The law was linked in the OP's article:

RCW 26.44.030: Reports—Duty and authority to make—Duty of receiving agency—Duty to notify—Case planning and consultation—Penalty for unauthorized exchange of information—Filing dependency petitions—Investigations—Interviews of children—Records—Risk a

app.leg.wa.gov

I'll have to look over it later, at a glance, it may not be incriminating this at all, but only triggering a government report be filed when the government discovers the Priest failed to report the crime. So it may not be as serious as I initially thought.

*Edit*

Yeah, I just saw that when I came back. I'll read it in full, later.

If they cover it up? sure, if they derelict their duties? not really.

In California, mandated reporters (like teachers, doctors, social workers, and other professionals listed under the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act) who knowingly fail to report known or reasonably suspected child abuse or neglect may face misdemeanor charges, carrying up to six months in county jail, and/or a $1,000 fine. If the failure to report is willful and the child suffers death or great bodily injury, the offense escalates, with penalties of up to one year in jail and/or a $5,000 fine. Additionally, civil liability may arise—especially if further harm results from non‑reporting—and reporters are granted immunity from criminal or civil liability when they act in good faith, but not if they file knowingly false reports.

 

[Rod1]

I understand their rule, the argument here is weather or not a religious leader can have knowledge of one of the worst crimes humans can perpetrate and not tell anyone bc they learned about it in their little box

No, the argument is whether a private citizen can be declared a "guilty bystander" by the State based on religious belief.

Its very easy to argue from the point of government is always great and laws will never be abused position, but when making a law which by definition increases the power of the State over its private individuals and curtails their freedom one has to balance the pros and cons of said laws.

 

[sickc0d3r]

If he tells you after the fact you are indeed off the hook because its quite likely you had absolutely nothing to do with the crime if you were unaware of it.



Yes i have a problem with it, if you are effectively a bystander, because you aren't even giving a guideline of what separates "reasonable belief".

I know that's true, I'm saying it should not be. You had nothing to do with the crime until you were told about it. At that point, you're involved, sorry for your luck. I definitely support categorizing crimes that require you to tell on someone if they inform you. Kid diddling tops that list. "Reasonable belief" is irrelevant. You can decide to withhold or not, but if some is convicted you might face consequences. I'm absolutely fine with that.

 

[sickc0d3r]

I mean, what are we talking about here? Some fucking body tells you they raped a kid and you get to decide if it's worth telling the police? Because you're a totally "innocent" bystander, but don't think that's some info that's worthy of dropping a dime? Gtfoh.

 

[Rod1]

I know that's true, I'm saying it should not be. You had nothing to do with the crime until you were told about it. At that point, you're involved, sorry for your luck.

No, you are definitively not involved in that case unless you support or encourage the person in anyway or form.

 

[Rod1]

I mean, what are we talking about here? Some fucking body tells you they raped a kid and you get to decide if it's worth telling the police? Because you're a totally "innocent" bystander, but don't think that's some info that's worthy of dropping a dime? Gtfoh.

We are talking about stupid laws, for once its completely unenforceable.

For once, how would you even know the criminal told the priest and the priest decided not to tell in the first fucking place?

 

[Rod1]

In California, mandated reporters (like teachers, doctors, social workers, and other professionals listed under the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act) who knowingly fail to report known or reasonably suspected child abuse or neglect may face misdemeanor charges, carrying up to six months in county jail, and/or a $1,000 fine. If the failure to report is willful and the child suffers death or great bodily injury, the offense escalates, with penalties of up to one year in jail and/or a $5,000 fine. Additionally, civil liability may arise—especially if further harm results from non‑reporting—and reporters are granted immunity from criminal or civil liability when they act in good faith, but not if they file knowingly false reports.

In that case it makes sense as a social worker that sees obvious signs of abuse and a cop that derelicts its duty can at least be reasonable pinpointed out because its their fucking job in the first place.

How do you even pin a priest on that?

 

[nostradumbass]

Sidestepping again, you must be a pretty good dancer. The point is, religions aren't free from any and all interference in their stupid as all fuck practices. There are always lines that cannot be crossed, regardless of our right to religious freedom. And the good news is, we, the people, get to define those lines if we want to.

Feel free to die on this hill, though. I'm enjoying watching Trump fans abandon principles to defend everything he does. Starting to think he does a lot of this shit on purpose, just to see if you'll go along. That wily fucker.

Well thanks for proving me right again, and showing that your only interest is your hostility towards the religion and "their stupid as all fuck practices".

No, you clown, you don't get to decide who gets rights and who doesn't, and YOU specifically sure as fuck don't because "we the people" already did decide, and you lost. But best of luck to you on your quest to ignore the rights of anybody you don't like. Not off to a great start when even a Biden judge just issued the injunction and said the law was unconstitutional, but best of luck dragging it up to the SCOTUS where the justices are 2/3 Catholic. I'm sure they'll be on your side and rule "yeah, our religion is stupid as fuck and we should totally give it up and let the karate forum decide what our rules should be".

And is it usually goes, their hypocrisy didn't do them any favors when even the state AG admitted that the law would be too hard to defend in federal court because they made it too obvious that it had more to do with targeting religion than protecting kids by adding all kinds of exemptions for secular professions like parents/guardians, counselors, lawyers, doctors, and ONLY specifically removing recognition of "confidential communication" from religious practices.

Thanks for playing, Bozo.


On Friday U.S. district judge David G. Estudillo ruled the priests were "likely to succeed" in their lawsuit and issued a preliminary injunction blocking that part of the law.

"There is no question that SB 5375 burdens plaintiffs’ free exercise of religion," Estudillo wrote. "In situations where Plaintiffs hear confessions related to child abuse or neglect, SB 5375 places them in the position of either complying with the requirements of their faith or violating the law...

"Ultimately, Washington’s failure to demonstrate why it has an interest of the highest order in denying an exemption to clergy while making such exemptions available to other professionals who work with underserved children is likely fatal."

 

[Jar of Flies]

Great timing on this.

 

[jefferz]

It's insane that some of you are putting the church over children that are being harmed.

 

[joy2day]

In that case it makes sense as a social worker that sees obvious signs of abuse and a cop that derelicts its duty can at least be reasonable pinpointed out because its their fucking job in the first place.

How do you even pin a priest on that?

You pin a priest when he was informed of abuse, did not report it, then it comes out in the wash that some kid died or got severely abused for an extended period of time and the priest did nothing about it. They would have to prove that the priest knew and did not report it before any criminal penalty could be enforced.

BTW- this is only in their professional capacity- even a mandated reporter has no duty to report away from their job, like if they saw something in the neighborhood. It would only be if the priest found out about it in confessional or counseling in the church.