LDS Bishop charged

[Guest gopecon]

Encouraging her to dress modestly right after she says she was sexually assaulted sounds an awful lot like blaming the victim. He may have been right, but his timing could have been better. Forgiving others is wonderful, allowing predators to walk free is quite another. Assuming we are talking about rape here (as Colirio noted, sexual assault can mean a variety of things, some of which are worse than others), forgiving those who trespass against us does not mean that we should let them victimize us without consequence. I hope that the advise as reported was not as callous as it seemed. I also hope that this happened out of good intentions and that this can be a learning experience going forward: when in doubt, let the police do the investigation.

[Suzie]

You are so wrong here.

Once (in this hypothetical situation) Sally said "Billy RAPED me" that's it....it goes to law enforcement and Billy should face a disciplinary council after the charges against him are delt with in court.

As soon as Bishop said "Sally, I think we need to talk about this" he committed a misdemeanor. All bishops have been trained on this specifically plus they have a free line to call and clear up any doubt plus they have the stake president to call at any time, 24/7, to ask what should be done. This happens in church sometimes and as soon as 'rape' or sexaul abuse in any form is mentioned the answer is always the same: police first then church steps in after the police and DA are done.

I thought the answer is always the same: Bishop must call the Church line FIRST to get advise before contacting the police?

[Suzie]

I can only hope that the Bishop's counsel and (in)actions were done from the perspective of charity and the best of intentions.

If he was wrong and a victim has been suffering because of the advise she got, does it really matter in the end if his intentions were good?

[MarginOfError]

Yes. If his intentions were good, maybe he can get off with parole instead of jail time.

[Suzie]

Yes. If his intentions were good, maybe he can get off with parole instead of jail time.

Touché.

However, what about the victim? Maybe I am being too harsh with a guy who holds the position of Bishop through a lay ministry.

[MarginOfError]

Touché.

However, what about the victim? Maybe I am being too harsh with a guy who holds the position of Bishop through a lay ministry.

I don't know. It's difficult to say how much leniency ought to be given to a lay ministry when the stakes are so high.

[Guest gopecon]

I'd hate to see a good man in a position that he did not volunteer for being harshly punished for something when he was honestly trying to help. Covering up for the attacker is another story. How you tell the difference is a tough call that would be very hard to make.

[Just_A_Guy]

I haven't looked to see how courts interpret the issue, but the only instruction the statute gives is as follows:

Any person, official, or institution required to report a case of suspected abuse, neglect, fetal alcohol syndrome, or fetal drug dependency, who willfully fails to do so is guilty of a class B misdemeanor. Action for failure to report must be commenced within four years from the date of knowledge of the offense and the willful failure to report.

[NeuroTypical]

Sounds like they're going to take a very close look at the word "willfully"...

[Colirio]

If he was wrong and a victim has been suffering because of the advise she got, does it really matter in the end if his intentions were good?

Yes.

Both in a court of law and at the judgement bar of Christ, intentions are at least a part of how people will be judged.

If a person is killed by a motorist, should it matter that the motorist was intentionally trying to run over someone he was angry at? Should the penalty be the same for someone who was destracted due to putting on her makeup? What if the car malfunctioned and it was beyond the motorist's control? Despite intentions, the end result is the death of an individual. But, the intentions of the motorist weigh heavily during judgement, sentencing, and especially their own feelings of guilt.

Regardless of the court's decision, the weightier matter for the Bishop will ultimately be how he answers to the Savior for the keys which were committed to him. I hope that this Bishop was not being neglectful in his duties and that his intentions were pure and honest.

Has it been reported what exactly was reported to the Bishop?

[Juan_P]

I thought the answer is always the same: Bishop must call the Church line FIRST to get advise before contacting the police?

If you do that you are open to any felony charges that result from not reporting to police first. That's one of the problems we have today in church, bishops think that 'advice' from church line is equivalent to legal advice and clear directions on what to do. But that doesn't take anything away from the legal responsibilites one has to report to law enforcement when we hear something.

Plus every man and bishop knows what "I was raped" means. They'd have no excuse after that but do need to consult with both stake president later.

[Just_A_Guy]

If you do that you are open to any felony charges that result from not reporting to police first.

I don't know what state you're talking about. In Utah, failure to report is a misdemeanor, not a felony.

That's one of the problems we have today in church, bishops think that 'advice' from church line is equivalent to legal advice and clear directions on what to do. But that doesn't take anything away from the legal responsibilites one has to report to law enforcement when we hear something.

The Church hotline is staffed by lawyers. A lawyer answering a legal question from a nonlawyer would seemingly qualify as "legal advice", at least in my opinion.

Plus every man and bishop knows what "I was raped" means. They'd have no excuse after that but do need to consult with both stake president later.

Even assuming that a) the accuser actually used those words, and b) that she was credible, the above is utterly irrelevant to the Utah reporting statute as-drafted in the context of Suzie's statement.

Edited December 31, 2011 by Just_A_Guy

[Juan_P]

I don't know what state you're talking about. In Utah, failure to report is a misdemeanor, not a felony

Yeah, its a misdemeanor. Seems Utah still doesn't consider these problems as serious enough, something which has brought problems to the church in the past.

The Church hotline is staffed by lawyers. A lawyer answering a legal question from a nonlawyer would seemingly qualify as "legal advice", at least in my opinion.

I never spoke to a lawyer when I had to call them, but this was more than 6 years ago now. If they now actually have bar qualified people there, well that's a bit of an improvement. Still when someone says 'I was raped' it should be obvious to all what we need to do, regardless of what our personal biases are toward the person are.

Even assuming that a) the accuser actually used those words, and b) that she was credible, the above is utterly irrelevant to the Utah reporting statute as-drafted in the context of Suzie's statement

The original example by Vort, which i answered and then Suzie questioned, had the girl saying "Billy raped me". Now whether she is credible or not is not for us to determine at this point in time, rather we should just hand the case over to the police, precisely because she said 'rape' and let them do their job first. Rape is easy to prove medically soon after it happens but becomes more difficult to prove with time.

You are right about Utah's statute too, it is grossly inadequate and still does not protect the victim first. And the church has suffered bad publicity because of this in the past, over child abuse cases, and from this case today it is clear that it is still getting bad publicity because leaders want to determine first who sins and who doesn't or who is telling the truth and who isn't before going to police, when it simply should be the other way round.

[NeuroTypical]

I never spoke to a lawyer when I had to call them, but this was more than 6 years ago now. If they now actually have bar qualified people there, well that's a bit of an improvement.

Wait - what "them" are you talking about? We're talking about the help line specifically for bishops and stake presidents in case of abuse. Here's what the prior version of the general handbook said about it (in 2006):

If one of these leaders becomes aware of physical or sexual abuse involving Church members, or if he believes that a person may have been abused or is at risk of being abused, he should call the help line. He will be able to consult with social services, legal specialists, and other specialists who can help answer questions and formulate steps that should be taken.

Are you telling us you used to be a bishop or stake president?

[Just_A_Guy]

Yeah, its a misdemeanor. Seems Utah still doesn't consider these problems as serious enough, something which has brought problems to the church in the past.

I'm too lazy to do a fifty-state survey, but California also makes it the equivalent of a class-B misdemeanor (up to 6 months in jail) and appears to require reporting only based on direct knowledge or reasonable suspicion. See here.

The original example by Vort, which i answered and then Suzie questioned, had the girl saying "Billy raped me". Now whether she is credible or not is not for us to determine at this point in time, rather we should just hand the case over to the police, precisely because she said 'rape' and let them do their job first.

Both Utah and California law disagree with you.

Rape is easy to prove medically soon after it happens but becomes more difficult to prove with time. [Emphasis added]

I think the word you are looking for is "intercourse". "Rape", from a legal standpoint, is notoriously difficult to prove.

You are right about Utah's statute too, it is grossly inadequate and still does not protect the victim first. And the church has suffered bad publicity because of this in the past, over child abuse cases, and from this case today it is clear that it is still getting bad publicity because leaders want to determine first who sins and who doesn't or who is telling the truth and who isn't before going to police, when it simply should be the other way round.

You are welcome to make that argument in the public policy arena. I'm not particularly concerned with what people think of the Church; I'm concerned that the Church and its officers do what is right. And I'm not sure it's right to set up a regimen where a hypothetical bishop hearing a frivolous accusation by a known liar is nevertheless compelled, against all the evidence and perhaps against the manifestations of the Spirit to which he is entitled, to bring the apparatus of the state down on whatever young man the accuser feels inclined to name.

Yeah, there needs to be a system where true rape victims are protected. But there also needs to be a system where the victims of false accusations are protected. Because--like it or not--some women do lie about rape; and the results can be devastating. The fact that the accused is a male--or even that he had the temerity to have sex out of wedlock--does not justify the witch-hunt mentality that unfortunately prevails in many self-proclaimed feminists.

Edited January 2, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[Juan_P]

Wait - what "them" are you talking about? We're talking about the help line specifically for bishops and stake presidents in case of abuse. Here's what the prior version of the general handbook said about it (in 2006):Are you telling us you used to be a bishop or stake president?

Yeah bishop; when I called I only got phychologist [from LDSSS it seemed] who were clear that acusations of abuse, and the one rape acusation I had, had to go straight to the 'authorities' first. But this was more than 6 years ago now , so maybe the church has changed some proceedures.

[Juan_P]

I'm too lazy to do a fifty-state survey, but California also makes it the equivalent of a class-B misdemeanor (up to 6 months in jail) and appears to require reporting only based on direct knowledge or reasonable suspicion

Well, if you consider a bishop doing a few months jail not a publicity problem for the church, well then you'd be right to minimize this situation. Plus someone telling you they were raped is rather more than "reasonable suspicion" I'd say.

I think the word you are looking for is "intercourse". "Rape", from a legal standpoint, is notoriously difficult to prove.

No. Medically rape, or forced intercourse, is easy to show up to about 48hrs after the event. I was referring to rape kits and medical exams not a legal standpoint.

You are welcome to make that argument in the public policy arena. I'm not particularly concerned with what people think of the Church; I'm concerned that the Church and its officers do what is right. And I'm not sure it's right to set up a regimen where a hypothetical bishop hearing a frivolous accusation by a known liar is nevertheless compelled, against all the evidence and perhaps against the manifestations of the Spirit to which he is entitled, to bring the apparatus of the state down on whatever young man the accuser feels inclined to name.

This was rather surprising to read. If you don't really care what people think of the church nor sure about this 'hypothetical bishop' thing why did you join this conversation? I responded to what Vort wrote [who never answered]. Plus, the church does care about what people think of it. For example publically embarrassing the church can trigger church discipline.

Yeah, there needs to be a system where true rape victims are protected. But there also needs to be a system where the victims of false accusations are protected. Because--like it or not--some women do lie about rape; and the results can be devastating. The fact that the accused is a male--or even that he had the temerity to have sex out of wedlock--does not justify the witch-hunt mentality that unfortunately prevails in many self-proclaimed feminists.

"Where true victims are protected...and victims of false accusations are protected"? It already exists, called justice system. It's there to protect the victim and also punish the false accuser.

But, correct me if I'm wrong here, but were you suggesting that one man can determine always and accurately everytime who the real victim is and who isn't? If so, I can tell you from years of being in that role that it doesn't always work that way. It takes time to determine that because the Lord doesn't always reveal what people are doing straight away and everytime. Sometime he wants them to confess first and so one doesn't find out about it until they do and that confession comes as a bit of a shock. Other times it is clear that the person is in sin but you just don't know what the problem is. Others you know who the, say, accomplise in a sin is without anyone saying it. It's always different and varies.

Anyways, a public forum is probably not the place to discuss these matters so maybe you can email me direct if you want to continue this.

[Vort]

I responded to what Vort wrote [who never answered].

I didn't notice a question. What sort of answer were you expecting?

[Just_A_Guy]

Well, if you consider a bishop doing a few months jail not a publicity problem for the church, well then you'd be right to minimize this situation.

Sure, it's a publicity problem; but the more important question is whether the bishop did the right thing.

Plus someone telling you they were raped is rather more than "reasonable suspicion" I'd say.

You might say. Others might not, particularly in light of a particular accuser whose bishop has specific information calling that accuser's credibility into question.

No. Medically rape, or forced intercourse, is easy to show up to about 48hrs after the event. I was referring to rape kits and medical exams not a legal standpoint.

I believe indications of extraordinarily rough intercourse, which may be indicative of lack of consent on the female's part, can be thus diagnosed. Naturally, a medical examination should be done as quickly as possible; which I grant was your overall point. My quibble here is that rape cannot generally be proven by physical evidence alone. Moreover, the legislative purpose of UCA 62A-4-411 was not the preservation of physical evidence pending criminal investigation. It is:

. . . to protect the best interests of children, offer protective services to prevent harm to children, stabilize the home environment, preserve family life whenever possible, and encourage cooperation among the states in dealing with the problem of abuse or neglect.

This was rather surprising to read. If you don't really care what people think of the church nor sure about this 'hypothetical bishop' thing why did you join this conversation? I responded to what Vort wrote [who never answered].

Simply to correct the record regarding some inaccurate statements of law.

"Where true victims are protected...and victims of false accusations are protected"? It already exists, called justice system. It's there to protect the victim and also punish the false accuser.

Yes; and one of the provisos of the justice system (at least in California and Utah) that we don't create a witch-hunt mentality by requiring bishops to report hearsay that they sincerely and strongly believe to be non-credible.

But, correct me if I'm wrong here, but were you suggesting that one man can determine always and accurately everytime who the real victim is and who isn't?

No. I am suggesting that one person can determine whether an accusation creates within him a "reasonable suspicion" that a rape has in fact taken place, which is the same position that California and Utah take.

If so, I can tell you from years of being in that role that it doesn't always work that way. It takes time to determine that because the Lord doesn't always reveal what people are doing straight away and everytime. Sometime he wants them to confess first and so one doesn't find out about it until they do and that confession comes as a bit of a shock. Other times it is clear that the person is in sin but you just don't know what the problem is. Others you know who the, say, accomplise in a sin is without anyone saying it. It's always different and varies.

Anyways, a public forum is probably not the place to discuss these matters so maybe you can email me direct if you want to continue this.

I do appreciate your insight. We're probably both somewhat jaded by our real-life experiences (you as a former clergyman who deals with honest-to-gosh victims; me as a family-law attorney who dabbles in criminal defense and sees what false accusations of this nature can do to a person and/or his family even if the accused is ultimately acquitted).

[NeuroTypical]

Update for May 2012: The charges have been dropped.

KSL.com - Prosecutors drop charges against LDS bishop in abuse reporting case

The part that stood out to me:

The decision to dismiss the charges was based on what Foote characterized as Moon's "admission in a public forum" that he'd mishandled the girl's disclosure of abuse. That was the most important thing to the girl and her family, he said.

"We didn't dismiss the charges because he didn't do anything wrong. We dismissed the charges because he accepted responsibility for what he did wrong," Foote said. "That's why the charges went away."

The prosecutor noted that since he was charged, Moon — who continues to serve as a bishop — has contacted law enforcement to report allegations of abuse brought forward by members of his congregation.

"Based upon his performance now, as well as his willingness to accept responsibility for what he did in the past, we believed it was a good point to end this prosecution," Foote said.

[Just_A_Guy]

The Trib's coverage includes this tidbit:

However, Moon’s defense attorney, David O. Leavitt, on Friday blasted that explanation as disingenuous at best.

"This was a complete surprise to us," Leavitt said. "But this whole case has been a complete surprise in that it was one that should never have been prosecuted to begin with. ... For the state to say, in effect, that all they wanted was an apology, or an admission that he could have handled the interview [with the girl] better? They had that from the beginning, and still the state had been absolutely unwilling to dismiss the charges. They insisted that Bishop Moon plead guilty."

. . . .

But Leavitt said prosecutors knew that the father had asked Moon to listen to the girl’s story because he was unsure she was telling the truth.

"The parents [of the girl] were divorced and the daughter claimed to have been abused by a [male] step-sibling," Leavitt said. "The father didn’t know who to believe, so he went to his bishop. It was a matter of ‘Can you hear my daughter’s story and tell me who’s telling the truth?’ "

Leavitt said that not only had the parents reported the incident to police 12 hours prior to her meeting with Moon, but the bishop was "the seventh person to know that something allegedly happened; the police knew about it before Bishop Moon even talked to the girl."

So, you're trying to prosecute a bishop in rural Utah whose only provable misconduct was not believing a girl whose own father didn't believe her, and not reporting an alleged crime that the police already knew about.

I'd have dropped the case, too.

Edited May 13, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[Echo2002]

Wow that's ridiculous, if seven people had already heard the girl's story, why was it only the Bishop's responsibility to report it? The parents should have reported it if they knew about it first. Did the father think the Bishop had some special truth radar that know one else had?

[MarginOfError]

Wow that's ridiculous, if seven people had already heard the girl's story, why was it only the Bishop's responsibility to report it? The parents should have reported it if they knew about it first. Did the father think the Bishop had some special truth radar that know one else had?

It depends on the local laws, but if the bishop is required to report such events, he is required to report them regardless of how many people have heard the allegations before him.

I still maintain that if he had called the Church's hotline when this started and asked what he ought to do, a lot of this would have been avoided. It sounds like he didn't make that call.

[RipplecutBuddha]

I wonder how many people followed this case. I wonder how many of them wanted the bishop to be drummed out of his position, if not out of the church itself, because of the initial news reports.

Let me explain it this way; When a case is still open, or under investigation, it is standard behavior for law enforcement officials to withhold significant amounts of information from the public. It protects the investigation itself, and in the case of when charges are filed, it helps keep the court proceedings on a more neutral basis.

So, how many people were thinking what I was thinking...that the bishop was the first to hear about these allegations, only to find out after the fact that the truth all along was that he was really the last one involved to hear anything at all.

The parents had already called the police and reported it....if I were the seventh person to hear the story, and I knew law enforcement had already been notified, and her father asked me to talk with her only because he wasn't convinced that she was being honest, would I seriously think about calling the cops as well? Would I have told the young woman to call the cops herself? I have to say I doubt it, were I in his shoes.

I understand there is a great need to protect our children, but remember we were kids too, and I'm sure more than one of us did our share of lying to our parents. Most likely not on this level of legal severity, but the truth remains, and Vort was right all along.

We never were in posession of all the facts in order to make a safe judgement, yet how many of us did so anyway? Even now we don't know what the specific allegation was. Most of the time it's best to let the situation play out and see what goes on from there. It's just too bad we aren't always patient enough to do so.

Edited May 15, 2012 by RipplecutBuddha

[MarginOfError]

I wonder how many people followed this case. I wonder how many of them wanted the bishop to be drummed out of his position, if not out of the church itself, because of the initial news reports.

Let me explain it this way; When a case is still open, or under investigation, it is standard behavior for law enforcement officials to withhold significant amounts of information from the public. It protects the investigation itself, and in the case of when charges are filed, it helps keep the court proceedings on a more neutral basis.

So, how many people were thinking what I was thinking...that the bishop was the first to hear about these allegations, only to find out after the fact that the truth all along was that he was really the last one involved to hear anything at all.

The parents had already called the police and reported it....if I were the seventh person to hear the story, and I knew law enforcement had already been notified, and her father asked me to talk with her only because he wasn't convinced that she was being honest, would I seriously think about calling the cops as well? Would I have told the young woman to call the cops herself? I have to say I doubt it, were I in his shoes.

I understand there is a great need to protect our children, but remember we were kids too, and I'm sure more than one of us did our share of lying to our parents. Most likely not on this level of legal severity, but the truth remains, and Vort was right all along.

We never were in posession of all the facts in order to make a safe judgement, yet how many of us did so anyway? Even now we don't know what the specific allegation was. Most of the time it's best to let the situation play out and see what goes on from there. It's just too bad we aren't always patient enough to do so.

I don't know that Vort was right. It appears from the latest developments that the bishop did not follow either Church policy or legal requirements. Again, it doesn't matter if the abuse has been reported before, or if other people have been told before the bishop. If the bishop is required to report allegations or evidence of abuse, he is required to report it. He failed in that responsibility and paid the price for it.