askandanswer Posted February 5 Report Share Posted February 5 There might be a member who, later this week, might be asked to plead guilty or not-guilty to a set of charges that resulted initially from a minor domestic violence incident but which were added to because of the nature of the interaction between him and a number of police officers who showed up in response to the initial call. If this person pleaded guilty he could end up spending a year or more in jail. This person’s legal representation might come from a non-government, community based organisation whose level of funding is far less than the completely inadequate funding provided to government Legal Aid organisations. In this country, there is no right to legal representation. If you can’t afford a lawyer, and if you don’t fall under the remit of one of the government or non-government organizations that attempt to provide legal representation, you’re on your own, although in practice, that doesn’t happen very often. There may have been a missionary, and perhaps even his companion, who witnessed this interaction between the member and the police. It is possible that this missionary could give evidence that could be different, in several key aspects, to the narrative of the numerous police officers who might be the only other source of information on this matter. There could be a strong reluctance from church leaders to have missionaries involved in this matter in any way. The police have not sought a statement from him/them. The lawyer who may end up handling the matter on behalf of the accused is not aware that there are one or two missionaries who might have witnessed much of the actions upon which the charges are based and whose testimony could influence either the verdict or the sentence. It may be the case that the church has had to choose between, on the one hand, maintaining its practice of preventing missionaries from serving as witnesses in criminal trials and concealing, or not making available, important evidence that could result in an impoverished person with a clean criminal record receiving a sentence that would be harsher than it might otherwise have been, or on the other hand, allowing the missionary to testify, thereby serving the interests of justice and reducing the severity of the sentence that is likely to be given, and that the church has chosen to protect the missionary to the detriment of the accused. My question is what is the moral and ethical thing to do in this situation. Should I let the lawyer know that there might be one, possibly two witnesses who could provide evidence that may run counter to the police narrative, or should I follow the church line and say nothing to anybody about the missionaries? And if I say nothing, would I then be complicit in what could be labelled a conspiracy of silence aimed at influencing the course of justice in a manner that is likely to adversely impact on a poor and highly vulnerable person? My inclination at present is to follow my Priesthood leaders and keep quiet about the missionaries. How might you handle such a matter? NeuroTypical 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zil2 Posted February 5 Report Share Posted February 5 19 minutes ago, askandanswer said: allowing the missionary to testify, thereby serving the interests of justice and reducing the severity of the sentence that is likely to be given How is there any contest? If the truth is that this person is not guilty of all that he's accused of, how does anyone remain silent in good conscience? 20 minutes ago, askandanswer said: and that the church has chosen to protect the missionary to the detriment of the accused. Who is "the church" in that statement? Mission President, bishop, stake president....? Why does someone need to be "protected" from participation in the legal process of a supposedly free and civilized country? I expect I would have some pretty impassioned arguments with whoever was trying to withhold witness testimony. Were I the witness, I cannot imagine remaining silent. 21 minutes ago, askandanswer said: How might you handle such a matter? With an awful lot of prayer. This is the sort of thing that damages souls and that can't really be fixed after the fact. Do we believe in speaking the truth and being responsible citizens or is that all just for the cameras? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zil2 Posted February 5 Report Share Posted February 5 I will concede, however, that witnesses don't always know what they saw, don't always remember correctly, and can easily be manipulated by a good attorney. I will further concede that the Lord may have his purposes which I don't know. But on the face of it, I'm having a hard time with the idea of keeping silent if you have testimony that isn't redundant or could be critical. Perhaps @mirkwood and @Just_A_Guy can talk some sense into me... mirkwood 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeuroTypical Posted February 5 Report Share Posted February 5 28 minutes ago, askandanswer said: might be might be could end up might come from may have been perhaps even could give evidence could be different could be a might have witnessed could influence may be the case could result in might otherwise have been what is the moral and ethical thing to do in this situation. How might you handle such a matter? Yeesh. I guess these are the two main principles at play: Quote We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. Quote Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. I'm also a big fan of these guidelines: Quote Third, to be righteous, an intermediate judgment must be within our stewardship. We should not presume to exercise and act upon judgments that are outside our personal responsibilities. ... Fourth, we should, if possible, refrain from judging until we have adequate knowledge of the facts. The 3rd guideline is basically "mind your own business". If you're not personally witness to this story, then all of your claim to the 4th guideline is hearsay and gossip. Whenever I find myself in a situation like that, I'm happy to talk in principles to anyone who wants to listen to me, but I wouldn't be interfering with a criminal matter. Example: My friend is telling me this story, and my friend was there. I might talk about the options my friend has, which include being brave and fighting a system with risk of blowback, or keeping silent and not doing the right thing. But at the end of the day, it would be my friend's action to take, not mine. mirkwood, askandanswer and zil2 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
askandanswer Posted February 5 Author Report Share Posted February 5 23 minutes ago, zil2 said: How is there any contest? If the truth is that this person is not guilty of all that he's accused of, how does anyone remain silent in good conscience? While I'm quite confident that the person has engaged in behaviour inconsistent with the law I'm also quite confident that the police have "overcharged" this person. That is a fairly common practice in this jurisdiction, particularly when it comes to Aborigines. Its my belief that the missionary could provide evidence that, while not clearing the person of all charges, would certainly cast significant doubt on some of the additional charges thereby leading to a reduce sentence. 26 minutes ago, zil2 said: Who is "the church" in that statement? Mission President, bishop, stake president....? Why does someone need to be "protected" from participation in the legal process of a supposedly free and civilized country? I expect I would have some pretty impassioned arguments with whoever was trying to withhold witness testimony. Were I the witness, I cannot imagine remaining silent. In this context, the current Branch President has been well aware of the situation, he accompanied me to the prison a few days ago where the accused is currently being held on remand. Both the Branch President and I have been keeping the first counsellor in the District Presidency well informed. The first counsellor was the Branch President at the time the incident occurred. He has completed a law degree but does not practice as a lawyer. The Branch President in the neighbouring Branch where the missionary has now been assigned, is a full-time senior missionary so he is well aware of the matter and it has been discussed with him on some occasions. I don't know if he has informed the Mission President, who is a former Area Seventy, but I would be surprised if he has not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDSGator Posted February 5 Report Share Posted February 5 (edited) Bro, I am beyond lost. You have so many “this may be, this might be, perhaps” that I’m not sure anyone can give you solid, insightful advice. That said, I really do wish you the best. Edited February 5 by LDSGator askandanswer 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
askandanswer Posted February 5 Author Report Share Posted February 5 19 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said: I'm also a big fan of these guidelines: Thanks for this, this is a helpful and interesting read. 20 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said: The 3rd guideline is basically "mind your own business". This has partly become my business. The first counsellor in the District Presidency asked me to attend court the day after the person was arrested. I did this, and there were several phone calls between myself and the Branch President on the morning of the hearing as I kept him updated. Since then I have visited the person in prison four times, twice with the EQP and once with the Branch President. The Branch President and I have made several attempts to find emergency accommodation for this person in the hope that if he had a place to stay the judge would be more likely to release him on bail. NeuroTypical 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
askandanswer Posted February 5 Author Report Share Posted February 5 4 minutes ago, LDSGator said: Bro, I am beyond lost. You have so many “this may be, this might be, perhaps” that I’m not sure anyone can give you solid, insightful advice. That said, I really do wish you the best. There are almost no certainties in life, no matter how obvious things might appear, so at times I am inclined to use cautious, non-judgemental language. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDSGator Posted February 5 Report Share Posted February 5 Just now, askandanswer said: There are almost no certainties in life, no matter how obvious things might appear, so at times I am inclined to use cautious, non-judgemental language. Okay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikbone Posted February 5 Report Share Posted February 5 I like to sleep at night. And I believe in following the commandments including being honest in dealing with our fellow man. It’s not your duty to get him a more lenient or harsh legal finding. But if you did not directly witness the event then frankly it ain’t your business. LDSGator, NeuroTypical and mirkwood 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDSGator Posted February 5 Report Share Posted February 5 17 minutes ago, mikbone said: But if you did not directly witness the event then frankly it ain’t your business. Well said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
askandanswer Posted February 5 Author Report Share Posted February 5 26 minutes ago, mikbone said: I like to sleep at night. And I believe in following the commandments including being honest in dealing with our fellow man. It’s not your duty to get him a more lenient or harsh legal finding. But if you did not directly witness the event then frankly it ain’t your business. Sometimes the boundary between the points of when a person should be interested in the operation of the justice system and when they need not be interested, is difficult to discern. However, as a general rule, I see some benefits to the broader society if people maintain a degree of interest in how and how well justice is administered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikbone Posted February 5 Report Share Posted February 5 5 minutes ago, askandanswer said: Sometimes the boundary between the points of when a person should be interested in the operation of the justice system and when they need not be interested, is difficult to discern. However, as a general rule, I see some benefits to the broader society if people maintain a degree of interest in how and how well justice is administered. You can encourage the missionaries to do the right thing. Reviewing the OP, all i appreciate is hearsay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CV75 Posted February 5 Report Share Posted February 5 1 hour ago, askandanswer said: There might be a member who, later this week, might be asked to plead guilty or not-guilty to a set of charges that resulted initially from a minor domestic violence incident but which were added to because of the nature of the interaction between him and a number of police officers who showed up in response to the initial call. If this person pleaded guilty he could end up spending a year or more in jail. This person’s legal representation might come from a non-government, community based organisation whose level of funding is far less than the completely inadequate funding provided to government Legal Aid organisations. In this country, there is no right to legal representation. If you can’t afford a lawyer, and if you don’t fall under the remit of one of the government or non-government organizations that attempt to provide legal representation, you’re on your own, although in practice, that doesn’t happen very often. There may have been a missionary, and perhaps even his companion, who witnessed this interaction between the member and the police. It is possible that this missionary could give evidence that could be different, in several key aspects, to the narrative of the numerous police officers who might be the only other source of information on this matter. There could be a strong reluctance from church leaders to have missionaries involved in this matter in any way. The police have not sought a statement from him/them. The lawyer who may end up handling the matter on behalf of the accused is not aware that there are one or two missionaries who might have witnessed much of the actions upon which the charges are based and whose testimony could influence either the verdict or the sentence. It may be the case that the church has had to choose between, on the one hand, maintaining its practice of preventing missionaries from serving as witnesses in criminal trials and concealing, or not making available, important evidence that could result in an impoverished person with a clean criminal record receiving a sentence that would be harsher than it might otherwise have been, or on the other hand, allowing the missionary to testify, thereby serving the interests of justice and reducing the severity of the sentence that is likely to be given, and that the church has chosen to protect the missionary to the detriment of the accused. My question is what is the moral and ethical thing to do in this situation. Should I let the lawyer know that there might be one, possibly two witnesses who could provide evidence that may run counter to the police narrative, or should I follow the church line and say nothing to anybody about the missionaries? And if I say nothing, would I then be complicit in what could be labelled a conspiracy of silence aimed at influencing the course of justice in a manner that is likely to adversely impact on a poor and highly vulnerable person? My inclination at present is to follow my Priesthood leaders and keep quiet about the missionaries. How might you handle such a matter? There are many hypotheticals and unknowns here (bolded). I would handle this by getting more facts to make an informed proposal to bring to the Lord. Exactly what are the Church's "practice" and "the church line"? What is the purpose of the practice and the line? (italicized) -- I would need a clear reference for this (CFR from you, if you have one). Then I would decide whether I am seeking a moral or ethical resolution (secular) or a spiritual resolution (personal revelation) and propose and pray accordingly. askandanswer 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zil2 Posted February 5 Report Share Posted February 5 1 hour ago, askandanswer said: While I'm quite confident that the person has engaged in behaviour inconsistent with the law I'm also quite confident that the police have "overcharged" this person. That is a fairly common practice in this jurisdiction, particularly when it comes to Aborigines. Its my belief that the missionary could provide evidence that, while not clearing the person of all charges, would certainly cast significant doubt on some of the additional charges thereby leading to a reduce sentence. Like I said, if this is the case, how does one remain silent in good conscience? (I'm not talking about you, necessarily, I'm talking about the witnesses. If they have something to add to the case, they should.) Let the man be punished for the crimes he did commit, not for the prejudices (or whatever) of the police. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
askandanswer Posted February 5 Author Report Share Posted February 5 29 minutes ago, CV75 said: There are many hypotheticals and unknowns here (bolded). I would handle this by getting more facts to make an informed proposal to bring to the Lord. Exactly what are the Church's "practice" and "the church line"? What is the purpose of the practice and the line? (italicized) -- I would need a clear reference for this (CFR from you, if you have one). Then I would decide whether I am seeking a moral or ethical resolution (secular) or a spiritual resolution (personal revelation) and propose and pray accordingly. Its not in my nature to disseminate unfavourable information about people, hence my couching this account in hypothetical terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carborendum Posted February 6 Report Share Posted February 6 If they were personal eye-witness to the events, I'd say that more light is always better than less light. zil2 and askandanswer 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popatr Posted February 6 Report Share Posted February 6 I would view it as my duty to tell the attorney. I'd feel conflicted if I felt sure that I was signing someone up for more abuse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
askandanswer Posted February 6 Author Report Share Posted February 6 7 minutes ago, Carborendum said: If they were personal eye-witness to the events, I'd say that more light is always better than less light. Yes I agree with this sentiment. Do you have any concerns about involving missionaries in criminal trials? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
askandanswer Posted February 6 Author Report Share Posted February 6 1 minute ago, popatr said: I would view it as my duty to tell the attorney. I'd feel conflicted if I felt sure that I was signing someone up for more abuse This is one of the issues I am wresting with. At the moment I'm inclined not to tell in order because I know the Branch President and counsellor in the District Presidency don't want there to be any possibility of missionary involvement and that is probably the direction I will take. But it seems to me as if the right thing to do is to let the attorney know and then leave it to them to decide if/how they want to call the witness. Some time today or tomorrow I will be writing out a statement for the attorney about what the Branch President and I know about the matter but I am expecting that at this point, that statement will not make any references to the missionaries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zil2 Posted February 6 Report Share Posted February 6 8 minutes ago, askandanswer said: that statement will not make any references to the missionaries Then how is the statement other than a lie? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carborendum Posted February 6 Report Share Posted February 6 (edited) 15 minutes ago, askandanswer said: Yes I agree with this sentiment. Do you have any concerns about involving missionaries in criminal trials? Me, personally? No. At the same time there may be a Church policy, but I'm not aware of one. Edited February 6 by Carborendum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
askandanswer Posted February 6 Author Report Share Posted February 6 24 minutes ago, zil2 said: Then how is the statement other than a lie? hmm, lots to think about here. I guess I'd have to make clear the limitations of the statement. Perhaps I could say this statement contains as much information as I am willing to provide about an incident that occurred on (DATE) at (PLACE) and then conclude with something like It may be possible to obtain further information from people involved in the incident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zil2 Posted February 6 Report Share Posted February 6 5 minutes ago, askandanswer said: hmm, lots to think about here. I guess I'd have to make clear the limitations of the statement. Perhaps I could say this statement contains as much information as I am willing to provide about an incident that occurred on (DATE) at (PLACE) and then conclude with something like It may be possible to obtain further information from people involved in the incident. And it seems to me there'd be nothing to make you go "hmm" if you just told the truth as you know it. The complication here seems entirely to surround "how do I not tell the full truth and feel good about that decision?" Is your legal system such that witnesses need to fear? I mean, I can make up all sorts of negative possibilities, but they all require either hypocrisy on the part of the Church or serious corruption on the part of your legal system. Don't envy the circumstances you've painted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
askandanswer Posted February 6 Author Report Share Posted February 6 4 minutes ago, zil2 said: And it seems to me there'd be nothing to make you go "hmm" if you just told the truth as you know it. The complication here seems entirely to surround "how do I not tell the full truth and feel good about that decision?" Is your legal system such that witnesses need to fear? I mean, I can make up all sorts of negative possibilities, but they all require either hypocrisy on the part of the Church or serious corruption on the part of your legal system. Don't envy the circumstances you've painted. Witnesses have nothing to fear, this case is far too trivial to attract anyone's attention or cause anyone except the accused to fear. The difficulty stems from the strongly held view/practice/policy, call it what you will, not to have missionaries involved in legal proceedings. I have a sort of out - I can say that I am simply following the directions of my Branch President. We had this conversation last night. And even though I don't feel comfortable with that decision I can uncomfortably follow it. Some of the potentially complicating factors are that both the man and the women at the centre were baptised about 6-7 months ago, the woman instigated the incident, but it was the man who was arrested because it was the woman who had visible signs of harm, the man wants to end the relationship, the woman wants it to continue, the man believes the woman's testimony is more likely to be favourable towards him if she believes that he wants to continue the relationship so he has an interest in maintaining that belief, whatever happens, both the man and the woman will continue to be in the same branch, the witness missionary was involved in bringing them into the gospel, I can't remember if he was the one who actually taught them, both the man and the woman have a form of apprehended violence order out against each other despite the fact that they have lived together for several years, and most of the charge arose not from the original incident, but what followed between the man and the police. And the police have sent him a bill of $60,000 dollars for damage he caused to their vehicle. That seems a totally unreasonable amount but I haven't seen the damage so I can't comment on that one. What made me go hmm was some initial thoughts along the line of how much can you leave out of a truthful statement before it becomes untrue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.