The following statements are true and self-evident as well as being supported by the Torah , research in psychology and correspond to observable facts.While establishing the theory as to why these statement are true is important - there is greater benefit in simply knowing what to do to increase protection of the children
================================
Conditions people are more likely to intervene to help victim
1 If the facts are clear.
2 If the consequences for not acting are made extremely clear.
3 If there is a secular penalty (mandated reporting) for not reporting.
4 If the destruction caused to a person by being abused is made clear.
5 If the individual is made personally responsible to prevent harm from abuser.
6 If the Torah mandated obligations for dealing with abuse are unambiguously presented by rabbinic authorities.
7 If rabbis, principals or other leaders of an organizations stop insisting that they must be the gatekeepers - even though they are typically unqualified and incompetent in these matters.
8 If people use seichel rather than hide behind halachic reasoning that has no basis in Shulchan Aruch and poskim.
9 If people establish the facts prior to applying halachic barriers such as claiming there is no reality of abuse unless established by two frum adult males.
10 If the Torah mandated consequences for failure to deal with abuse are unambiguously presented.
11 If the operations of the secular authorities are clear, sensitive and effective in dealing with the problem.
12 If the negative consequences are a minimum to innocent family and community members. 13 If the community no longer tries to destroy those that report abuse. 14 If there is community approval and encouragement to deal with abuse. 15 If it is a member of the family - child or grandchild - who is being abused
When pp start caring more about "Penimiyot" i.e. truth, then Chitzoniut, i.e reputation, then pp will feel compelled to act.
ReplyDeleteYou forgot:
ReplyDeleteWhen you don't know the perpetrator, you are more likely to believe the victim.
I think that this an important factor coming into play. Each time, I read about abuse and people defending the perpetrator, it's just because they cannot fit in the abuse with the (positive) image they have of the perpetrator. They will not believe "rumors" from someone they do not know over the perp they do know. And indeed, it is difficult.
It is much more difficult believing the "rumors" when you look the perp in the eye than when you don't know him...
I would add on:
ReplyDeleteWhen leaders and prominent figures themselves unequivocally report abuse affecting their own children and grandchildren, others are more likely to act.
When leaders form shiduchim with victims who testified in court and value them in shiduchim as highly as other comparable individuals, others will be more likely to act.
For the last two we have to rely on surmise because leaders have not yet, to my knowledge, done that.
Rabbi Eidensohn,
ReplyDeleteThis is a thoughtful list. I hope you will expand it, and provide the context so it can become a manifesto of sorts for defining the goals of those who are working to fight abuse.
In the interim, I would suggest numbering the items to facilitate discussion.
I would also add on another item: When those who inapproriately defend molesters or malign victims are themselves subjected to public disapproval by prestigious figures, people are more likely to act.
I think the list is useless, since the fact remains that it's extremely difficult to prove sexual abuse. Just search Google Scholar and you'll find plenty of citations.
ReplyDeleteWhen truth is ambiguous, reputable Rabonim like Rav Sternbuch will never allow reporting.
These wise men have seen how often unfounded allegations are used in divorce proceedings and serious marital strife.
FIRST - WE NEED A BETTER SYSTEM FOR INQUIRY AND INVESTIGATION.
Rav Sternbuch does allow reporting. I once asked him regarding reports that there was a molestor in Har Nof and he told me to call the police. Don't know where you get your knowledge from. Other people have gone to him and described the situation and he told them to go to the police. He didn't ask to here both sides before he said to go to the police. So while you sit and twiddle your thumbs and say "its extemely difficult to prove" he will say to call the police because the main issue is protecting the children.
DeleteI beg to differ Me2. From my own pesonal experience, over the years I have spoken to Rabbonim about different cases where abuse was suspected, and in all cases they didn't question the facts that the abuse was likely happening, yet they somehow could not bring themselves to act.
DeleteI somehow suspect that those claiming abuse can't be proven use this argument as an excuse not to deal with the subject at all; and that I feel is criminal.
Let me clarify:
DeleteDT:
Rav Sternbach allows reporting in cases of רגלים לדבר. This is very different than what the mandatory reporting laws would require, where the secular authorities are to be trusted. You've posted letters from RS requiring pretty much the same.
Foordas:
Of course what your saying is unfortunately also true. I was only pointing out that establishing guilt is a real problem.
I recently heard - first hand - from a wife who filed false allegations against her husband in her anger (they were having marital problems) and then came home one day and simply told him "let's forget about everything". At this point, it's the husband who is adamant not to "just forget".
See my post at the end of last thread concerning this subject, where I mention procrastination and fear of mafia-type payback as other reasons why many Rabbonim don't act.
"I think the list is useless, since the fact remains that it's extremely difficult to prove sexual abuse. Just search Google Scholar and you'll find plenty of citations.
DeleteWhen truth is ambiguous, reputable Rabonim like Rav Sternbuch will never allow reporting."
The above is simply not true.
Me2, can you please clarify, bringing examples, when Raglayim Ledovor would differ with secular mandated reporting laws. After all mandated reporting is also only mandated when one has reason to suspect that abuse is going on.
ReplyDeleteI would greatly appreciate it if you can clearly state how the two differ.
Also, I believe that instances where there is a battle for child custody going on is probably the only situation where one would fabricate stories of abuse. And it seems to me as the cry for action against molestation is rising, so too, unfortunately, instances of false accusations during child custody battles are on the rise.
Thus I believe we need to separate out these cases. Like instead of saying "one can never ascertain if abuse is actually going on," one should say, "in child custody cases it is more difficult to ascertain if abuse is actually taking place."
Having said that, I need to add that even in child custody cases one can clearly, at times, ascertain the truth. Like in the Weingarten case, the issue of incest was raised way before divorce was even being considered, and shamefully the Rabbonim supporting Mr. Weingarten had the audacity to claim Mrs. Weingarten was only fabricating all this to take the kids away from him.
Really?
ReplyDeleteHere's something from a letter you posted on July 12th - word for word - from what Rav Sternbuch writes:
1) בנידון שאלתו על אחד שחשוד שמכשיל רבים בחמורות
2) ויש מעידים שהודה כן
3) ורב מובהק מאשר שהחשד רציני
Please understand that Gedolim weigh and measure their words.
The Rav specifically included three prerequisites which just so "HAPPEN" to to match with what the Shulchan Aruch requires for reporting.
1) מכשיל את הרבים - not a one time thing, but an ongoing problem. The purpose of reporting is to avoid damage in the future.
2) מעידים שהודה - There is no question as to the veracity of the facts. There is therefore no reason to think that the abuse allegations is being used as a tool to further anyones agenda.
3) 3) רב מובהק מאשר - An impartial Rav certifies the last two points as true. People are ingenious. Someone with an ax to grind can easily assert that the first two points happened (That there is a danger for the future when in fact there isn't, and that there was an admission of guilt, when there wasn't). The Rav KNOWS that an impartial Rabbinic authority acted as fact-checker.
THAT is when reporting is REALLY mandatory.
Unfortunately, even then too many Rabbonim stick their head in the sand. THAT is wrong.
Please don't turn this sexual abuse thing into a tool for feminists or discontented spouses or children. The end result will be that nobody will believe ANYBODY and that the real molesters will hide behind the falsely accused.
Sane minds should rule.
DT, you seem to be close to Rav Sternbuch. Here's a challenge: Check my version against yours, and get something in writing and please post it. If I'm wrong I'll admit it. Will you?
I have discussed this with Rav Sternbuch, I have summarized his views which he reviewed and oked to be included in my books which he has read. At his request I give him copies of what I post on the blog - which he reads.
DeleteI have asked him for something in writing in the past and he told me to write it and he would comment - the result was what I included in my book in his name.
If you don't approve of what I am saying - then you should go to Rav Sternbuch and complain
please read the comments to the July post
Deletehttp://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2012/07/rav-sternbuch-reporting-abuse.html
Based on the above, in my humble opinion, you're lumping some solid arguments along with some questionable ones.
ReplyDeleteExample of the questionable ones would be #8 and #9 on your list:
" 8 If people use seichel rather than hide behind halachic reasoning that has no basis in Shulchan Aruch and poskim.
9 If people establish the facts prior to applying halachic barriers such as claiming there is no reality of abuse unless established by two frum adult males."
As to #8 about using "seichel" - whose seichel? Based on what criteria?
As to #9 - Most Rabbonim rely on רגלים לדבר, meaning that two adults are NOT necessary as witnesses. So that's a strawman argument.They do however require STRONG circumstantial evidence. I haven't worked through the details of exactly what that entails, and my gumption is that many of the activists haven't either. Like in most highly charged disagreements, the truth takes a back seat to emotional hysteria.
regarding #9 please read Rav Menashe Klein's teshuva
DeleteAs I have written many times - in the realm of self-defense or defending others the halachic considerations are based on commonsense - what a reasonable adult would do - rather than on halachic analysis or knowledge i.e., seichel.
Halachic analysis is critical when their is a beis din that is determining guilt or innocence.
http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2009/06/abuse-strict-din-according-to-torah_01.html
your analysis is simply muddying the waters rather than adding any clarity to the discussion.
I know about the Teshuva. He's a minority opinion, as Rav Eliashev, Rav Halberstam etc. disagree based (I think) on a Maharsham.
DeleteAnd you gave yourself away with the "self defense" comment.
You write "in the realm of self-defense or defending others the halachic considerations are based on commonsense - what a reasonable adult would do - rather than on halachic analysis or knowledge i.e., seichel."....
is actually muddling the waters.
The "reasonable person" must be well versed in Torah law, no less than in ANY other area of life.
You lump "emotional abuse" along with physical danger. Yes, עביד איניש דינא לנפשי' applies by physical and monetary matters.
An allegation of abuse, in our environment were people use such allegations as tools to "win" their silly arguments doesnt qualify.
Think about it:
The best solution available at the current time, in my humble opinion, would be to focus on getting the known repeat offenders of the streets, along with those that a Godol has determined to reach the Halachic criteria for reporting.
DeleteYes, we need to change the environment of fear and the negative connotation that comes with the word "Mesira". We need to teach the masses when it is and when it is not messira. We need to stop treating those accused as heroes - but we also need to stop treating any activist as a hero.
What. Are my etes fooling me?
DeleteDid DT write this?
in the realm of self-defense or defending others the halachic considerations are based on commonsense - what a reasonable adult would do - rather than on halachic analysis or knowledge i.e., seichel.
RATHER than Halacha? NO!
THAT sounds like Kefira!!!
Halachic analysis is all-encompassing
Wow!!!
ReplyDeleteI think a Social Scientist could take this thread as a prime example of how biases color our reasoning....
Iv'e taken DT's advice to read the comments on the July post, and this is what I've found:
DT writes:
"July 12, 2012 8:30 PM
I have discussed the issue with him. On one occasion I told him that there were reports of a molester in Har Nof and he told me to call the police.
He told me that a rav should be asked - if the delay doesn't endanger anyone - in order that the world not be hefker"
Do you see where he says "a rav should be asked - if the delay doesn't endanger anyone - in order that the world not be hefker"?
Does THAT match mandatory reporting laws?
I know... I know... EVERY allegation constitutes a חשש of endangering others.
This is were activism becomes dangerous - and hurts not only innocent people, but also THE CHILDREN WE NEED TO PROTECT.
Like the boy who cried wolf - nobody will end up believing even the strongest abuse cases because of the vigilantes.
DeleteI asked Rav Sternbuch regarding mandatory reporting laws which are based on BM 83. He told me that since the authorities don't mind if you first ask a rabbi than you should do it. Obviously where they do mind - then you have the clear protection of BM 83.
Rav Moshe Halberstam also notes that calling the police doesn't cause punishment but rather an investigation.
Regarding crying wolf - America did go through a period of crying wold with many false allegation with the initial awareness of abuse - but it has settled down with
DT writes: "Obviously where they do mind - then you have the clear protection of BM 83."
ReplyDeleteMy comment: This "little detail" is much too serious to assume as "obvious". How about getting a clear Psak concerning this "detail"?
there is the clear psak of Rav Moshe Feinstein and others
DeleteDt writes:
ReplyDelete"Rav Moshe Halberstam also notes that calling the police doesn't cause punishment but rather an investigation."
Total misquote. In his Teshuva in Yeshron he clearly writes that hes talking about....
היודע באדם מסויים שהוא חוטא ומרשיע...... הדברים ידועים שהוא עושה כן
HE CLEARLY DOES NOT ALLOW...
"self-defense or defending others the halachic considerations are based on commonsense - what a reasonable adult would do"
NO GODOL WOULD ALLOW THAT!
you are misreading the article. Simple question for you - when someone thinks that someone else is about to hurt them or others - is he required to go to a posek? In short does the din of rodef required a psak from a beis din or rav? Does a case of sofek rodef need a psak? The obvious answer is no!
DeleteThe quote I cited is not from Rav Moshe Halberstam but from Rav Silman
Rav Yehuda Silman (Yeschurun 22):. 4) The view expressed in Bava Metzia (83b) concerning R’ Eliezar bar Rav Shimon who was involved in capturing thieves because the king had commanded him to do so... In the original article I was inclined to the view that in the case of sexual abuse since the perpetrator is not executed but is imprisoned to protect society then perhaps all would agree that it is permitted to report him to the authorities... In addition according to the reason that even in the case of a possible rodef it is permitted to inform the authorities – it is obvious that is permitted without proper witnesses since all that is required is that there be the possibility that he is an abuser... it is clear that there is no need to convene a beis din in the presence of both sides since the basis of the permission to report the perpetrator to the secular authorities is either because he is a possible rodef (pursuer) or to separate him from sinning or because of the government mandates reporting. In fact these cases do not require a beis din and we need to merely consider the possible loss versus the possible gain. If the accusations are in fact true then we are dealing with a case of saving a person from being harmed. While if the accusations are in fact not true then in general then the government will free him. On the other hand it is certain that it is impossible that everyone can take responsibility for deciding whether to inform the secular authorities…
DT writes:
ReplyDelete"America did go through a period of crying wold with many false allegation with the initial awareness of abuse - but it has settled down with"
REALLY? When did it settle down? How long ago was that?
Here's one RECENT study from OCT 2011 (recent enough?)
:
"Allegations of Child Sexual Abuse in Family Court Cases: A Qualitative Analysis of Psychiatric Evidence"
Abstract
Allegations of child sexual abuse in Family Court cases have gained increasing attention. The study investigates factors involved in Family Court cases involving allegations of child sexual abuse. A qualitative methodology was employed to examine Records of Judgement and Psychiatric Reports for 20 cases distilled from the data corpus of 102 cases. A seven-stage methodology was developed utilising a thematic analysis process informed by principles of grounded theory and phenomenology. The explication of eight thematic clusters was undertaken. The findings point to complex issues and dynamics in which child sexual abuse allegations have been raised. The alleging parent's allegations of sexual abuse against their ex-partner may be: the expression of unconscious deep fears for their children's welfare, or an action to meet their needs for personal affirmation in the context of the painful upheaval of a relationship break-up. Implications of the findings are discussed.
Here's another recent study from May 2011, published in "Legal and Criminological Psychology"
ReplyDeleteVolume 17, Issue 2, pages 322–335, September 2012
Sidetracked by emotion: Observers’ ability to discriminate genuine and fabricated sexual assault allegations
Purpose. Assessing the credibility of reports of sexual victimization – often in the absence of corroboration – presents a significant challenge for legal decision makers. This study examined the accuracy of observers in discriminating genuine and fabricated sexual assault allegations. Further, we examined whether individual differences and cue utilization strategies influenced deception detection accuracy.
Methods. Observers (N= 119) evaluated eight (four truthful and four deceptive) written allegations of sexual assault (counterbalanced), and completed a Credibility Assessment Questionnaire (CAQ) and individual differences measures.
Results. Results indicated that overall accuracy was below chance (M= 45.3%), and a truth bias was evidenced. Examining the Big Five personality traits, we found that openness to experience and neuroticism were positively associated with accuracy, whereas extraversion was negatively related to accuracy. Further, judgement confidence was negatively associated with accuracy.
Conclusions. The present study offers insights into observers’ perceptions of credibility regarding real-life sexual assault allegations. Implications for legal decision making are discussed.
Eye witness accounts are also unreliable - therefore we should not have anyone arrested for any reason?!
DeleteFurthermore if we are dealing with human falliblity - do you have any evidence that a person who is viewed as a rabbi or godol is more accurate in these matters?
There is a reason Gedolim dont join the activist bandwagon. False allegations are rife.
ReplyDeleteI reiterate what I think is the best solution :
Get the איש רע מעללים מזיד ומפשיע... עבריינים..
into jail.!!!
Remove the stigma of reporting them.
Perhaps if we do what we CAN DO, Hashem will bring truth back into the Bais Din system and the manipulators and lairs will "feel the heat" when they use deception.... and then we'll have the ability to investigate and separate fact from fiction....
you obviously missed Rabbi Zweibel's interview with Mishpacha where he stated that despite abuse being a major issue it was on the back burner until the bloggers brought attention to it? He didn't say that because the gedolim were concerned about false allegations. Same problem of false allegations existed before the bloggers made a stink and after they made a stink about the issue.
DeleteOne rav told me that until recently rabbi were not aware of the psychological damage and thus viewed molesting as primarily a moral issue. Now that it is clear that victims are destroyed it is an issue of rodef and pikuach nefesh
You acknowledge that beis din has a significant issue of truth - not just concerning molesting - we don't have to wait for moshiach to do something now.