Supreme court slams acquital of forgiven yeshiva student

Jpost JPost2

The Supreme Court on Monday harshly criticized Jerusalem District Court judge Moshe Drori for his decision not to convict a yeshiva student who ran over Ethiopian-Israeli parking lot cashier Noga Zoarish. The decision was apparently made in order not to harm the man's chances of being appointed as a judge in the rabbinic courts.

"This is a very severe incident. I read the district court decision and did not understand how the yeshiva student was not convicted, it is inconceivable," Justice Edmund Levy said.

Levy also questioned the sincerity of the perpetrator's remorse and public apology to Zoarish, which was one of the grounds for Drori's acquittal, pondering why he expressed no such sentiments while being interrogated by police.

"He was involved in such a severe incident and expressed no remorse. That should also be taken into account when one decides to pave the way for him becoming a rabbinic judge," Levy said.

Levy backed the prosecution's request to remove the gag order on publishing the man's name. "It's unacceptable that he be treated favorably just because he could potentially be appointed as a rabbinic judge. Why does he need to remain anonymous?" he said.

The State Prosecution launched an appeal against the acquittal Monday, and during the court session, Zoarish burst into tears.

"He asked me for forgiveness in court, and I forgave him," she said, referring to the Jerusalem District Court hearing during which the student was acquitted. "But his apology wasn't genuine."[...]

Allow victim to suffer to prevent collateral damage to community?

Under what circumstances should I avoid saving a person from harm because of the collateral damage? Does it make a difference what type of colleteral damage would occur or how many people would suffer?

Is there a difference if the collateral damage is to a single individual, family, school or community. Sources?

If the rabbonim say that the saving the victim of abuse would mean that community's main yeshiva would be destroyed by lawsuits and as a result 90% of the kids would go off the derech. Does the victim have the right to insist on taking measures to protect himself from harm - even if collateral damage results?

Or what about the future. The molesting has stopped but the victim wants to punish perpetrator to deter other perpetrators in the future. Community says that they are not willing lose yeshiva for the sake of protecting against future acts. Does the victim have to go along with their decision. Sources?

Does the non compliance with the community wishes constitute a transgression of any specific mitzva? Or is it simply that the community has the right apply all types sanctions to achieves but there is no actual sin.

Another way of looking at it is that the community should have taken proactive measures to make sure this dilemna never arises - but since it didn't can they avoid the consequences?

Responsibility - absolved if case is reported to rabbi/police?

I need some sources regarding the question of whether a person is absolved of responsibility by going to a rabbi or police. For example we know that a person is obligated to try and save another from harm. If he sees another drowning or hears a plot against him he needs to either save him or have others save the person.

When I discover a case of abuse and report this information to a rabbi or the police - am I free from future obligation? Or should I view that I have merely delegated the task to another but that the primarily responsibility remains with me. This seems to be the issue of a shomer who hands his job over to another shomer. If there is any damage the first shomer is responsible.

שולחן ערוך (חושן משפט רצא:כו): שומר שמסר לשומר, חייב, אפילו אם הוא שומר חנם ומסר לשומר שכר, דאמר ליה: את מהימן לי בשבועה היאך לא מהימן לי בשבועה. אפילו אם ידוע לכל שהשני טוב וכשר יותר מראשון. הגה: מיהו שומר שמסר לשומר לפני המפקיד, ולא מיחה, פטור (מרדכי פרק המפקיד). לפיכך אם דרך הבעלים להפקיד תמיד דבר זה אצל השומר השני, הרי השומר הראשון פטור מלשלם, והוא שלא ימעט שמירתו; אבל אם מיעט שמירתו, כגון שהראשון היה שומר שכר והשני ש"ח, או שהראשון שואל והשני ש"ש, פושע הוא הראשון ומשלם, אע"פ ששאל או שכר בבעלים. ואם יש עדים ששמר השני כראוי, נפטר שומר ראשון. ואפילו לא היו שם עדים, אם השומר הראשון ראה ויכול הוא לישבע, הרי זה נשבע ונפטר (ועיין סימן ע"ב סעיף ל').

Is that true in the case of an obligation to protect another person from harm? In other words if I report a case of abuse do I need to do a follow up that the case is in fact being properly dealt with? Additional if I try once to help and fail - do I need to keep trying?

Children recant sex abuse charge after father serves 20 years

Associated Press

Former Vancouver police officer Clyde Ray Spencer spent nearly 20 years in prison after he was convicted of sexually molesting his son and daughter. Now, the children say it never happened.

Matthew Spencer and Kathryn Tetz, who live in Sacramento, Calif., each took the stand Friday in Clark County Superior Court to clear their father's name, The Columbian newspaper reported.

Matthew, now 33, was 9 years old at the time. He told a judge he made the allegation after months of insistent questioning by now-retired Clark County sheriff's detective Sharon Krause just so she would leave him alone.

Tetz, 30, said she doesn't remember what she told Krause back in 1985, but she remembers Krause buying her ice cream. She said that when she finally read the police reports she was "absolutely sure" the abuse never happened.

"I would have remembered something that graphic, that violent," Tetz said.

Spencer's sentence was commuted by then-Gov. Gary Locke in 2004 after questions arose about his conviction. Among other problems, prosecutors withheld medical exams that showed no evidence of abuse, even though Krause claimed the abuse was repeated and violent.

Despite the commutation, Spencer remains a convicted sex offender. He is hoping to have the convictions overturned. [...]

Rabbi Tropper apologizes!

I wish to thank Roni for the following:

Rav Sternbuch on the EJF

Posted by Rabbi Tropper Posted in EJF Posted on 11-07-2009

Tags: EJF, Rav Sternbuch

Rabbi Tropper:

Is it true that your blog claimed that Rav Sternbuch told someone that he was against nasty attacks on EJF?

Rabbi Tropper responds:

I was so told. Subseqently someone emailed me that what I reported on the blog was not true and that Rav Sternbuch had not spoken to anyone regarding the attacks on EJF. I thanked him for notifying me and told him That I would correct it ASAP.

That Person Emailed me again thanking me.

I then Removed it from the Blog immediatly and notified that person that it had been corrected.

I apologize for the mistake.

EJF - Making peace with R' Tropper

This Shabbos Rav Sternbuch told me about a telephone call he received this week. He said that someone had called him and said that it was time to make peace between R' Tropper and myself. That they were tired of being criticized. He told the caller that he was not getting involved in the matter. The rest of our conversation is not for publication.

The issue in fact is not between me and R' Tropper. It is between R' Tropper and Rav Sternbuch. All that we have been asking for the last two years is the halachic reasoning of their poskim for what they are doing. [The teshuva from Rav Reuven Feinstein is not adequate because it doesn't address their proselytizing efforts] Then Rav Sternbuch either agrees or disagrees with it. If R' Tropper is too shy to make an appointment I will be glad to make an appointment for him. It would be helpful if he would take Rav Reuven Feinstein along. Rav Sternbuch's views have simply served as the justification for me to raise questions and criticize the published descriptions of what R' Tropper is doing. If Rav Sternbuch is satisfied with what they are doing I will be too. If R' Tropper doesn't want to do that, teshuvos from Rav Eliashiv or Rav Reuven Feinstein could serve the same function. This is really the absurdity of the situation. The issue could have been resolved a long time ago with minimum effort.

Obama & his Russian diplomatic "successes"

Washington Post Charles Krauthammer

The signing ceremony in Moscow was a grand affair. For Barack Obama, foreign policy neophyte and "reset" man, the arms reduction agreement had a Kissingerian air. A fine feather in his cap. And our president likes his plumage.

Unfortunately for the United States, the country Obama represents, the prospective treaty is useless at best, detrimental at worst.

Useless because the level of offensive nuclear weaponry, the subject of the U.S.-Russia "Joint Understanding," is an irrelevance. We could today terminate all such negotiations, invite the Russians to build as many warheads as they want and profitably watch them spend themselves into penury, as did their Soviet predecessors, stockpiling weapons that do nothing more than, as Churchill put it, make the rubble bounce.

Obama says that his START will be a great boon, setting an example to enable us to better pressure North Korea and Iran to give up their nuclear programs. That a man of Obama's intelligence can believe such nonsense is beyond comprehension. There is not a shred of evidence that cuts by the great powers -- the INF treaty, START I, the Treaty of Moscow (2002) -- induced the curtailment of anyone's programs. Moammar Gaddafi gave up his nukes the week we pulled Saddam Hussein out of his spider hole. No treaty involved. The very notion that Kim Jong Il or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will suddenly abjure nukes because of yet another U.S.-Russian treaty is comical.

The pursuit of such an offensive weapons treaty could nonetheless be detrimental to us. Why? Because Obama's hunger for a diplomatic success, such as it is, allowed the Russians to exact a price: linkage between offensive and defensive nuclear weapons.

This is important for Russia because of the huge American technological advantage in defensive weaponry. We can reliably shoot down an intercontinental ballistic missile. They cannot. And since defensive weaponry will be the decisive strategic factor of the 21st century, Russia has striven mightily for a quarter-century to halt its development. Gorbachev tried to swindle Reagan out of the Strategic Defense Initiative at Reykjavik in 1986. Reagan refused. As did his successors -- Bush I, Clinton, Bush II. [...]