Oh, I forgot, those are CLOSED to the public, thus most people do not KNOW how prevalent this is. I use to do Children and Youth Work, and it is more common then a lot of people would like it to be. On the other hand how do you treat everyone equally in the system? I bring that up for something like 90% of the perpetrators are male relative of the victim. Thus you get the situation where a Judge has to decide a case where the Judge has to make sure the Victim is punished LESS then the perpetrator. If the perpetrator is the main financial support for the victim (more the case then not), if you throw him into jail, he has a place to live, three meals and clothing, all provided by the State. What about the victim? He or she will have to move out of their home, for the surviving parent can NOT afford to keep it for the perpetrator is in Jail and therefore can NOT pay Child Support. The Victim will have to change schools and find new friends, often in a poorer neighborhood then the Victim had lived in before.
Due to the above problems Judges are reluctant to jail perpetrators who are the main or secondary financial support for the victim. Perpetrators are given probation so they can find work (or continue the work they are doing) and pay child support. This way the victim is not punished at all, while the perpetrator is.
And under the Equal Protection of the Law doctrine, you have to treat all perpetrators the same, thus they tend to get probation unless it is clear they are incapable of paying support or other compensation, then they go to jail.
As to cover-ups, ALL organization cover up such situations, including the courts. The Boy Scouts, like the Catholic Church, did have a procedure to watch for such situations. The Catholic Church has strengthened their rules in the 1990s, to return so something like the rules that existed prior to 1960. Starting in the 1960s, under the Spirit (not the letter but the Spirit) of Vatican II, a lot of old rules were abolished, rules that seemed old fashioned but had been effective at preventing such situations (one old rule was a Priest faced the same punishment if he had a child just go into the private sections of his house as if he had sex with that child, the reason for this rule was simple, it was easy to show if the Child was in the forbidden section of the house, by just having the child describe what was in it, as opposed to the issue who was lying when the priest denied having sex and the child said yes they did).
When you deal with Children such cases will occur, it is part of having to deal with children. The real issue is NOT that such things occur, but how does the organization handle such situations. Prior to the 1960s, the Catholic Church would find the Priest Guilty of the Crime, then assign him to a job with no contact with children. Starting in the 1960s, this was changed, only in some Dioceses not most, to just moving the priest. The Courts have NOT held the Catholic Church liable for just a single case of child rape, on the grounds the Catholic Church can NOT prevent every such case, the Courts have ruled the Catholic Church liable when they failed to follow they own rules as to Priests so accused. i.e. One case by itself proves nothing, moving the priest once and such stories did not reappear then you have clear evidence the child was lying not the priest. On the other hand if the stories re-appeared with new victims, then the Priest had been lying and should have been re-assigned to a job that did not incur contact with children. Had the church adopted that solutions (and most Diocese did) no court case, but some dioceses (and all you have to do is a quick google search to find out which ones) just kept moving the accused priest around. The Courts have held the Catholic Church Liable is such situations.
Similar situations have occurred in Public Schools, but no liability has been awarded on the grounds the teacher did NOT act in the Name of the School and the School Administration should not be held liable for their refusal to discipline the teacher under the doctrine of Sovereign Immunity (i.e. the teacher and even the teacher's principal could be sued, but NOT the School). The Catholic Church does NOT have that defense, and thus have been held liable is such cases. The Boy Scouts are similar, not an organ of the State and thus NOT able to claim Sovereign Immunity.
Sorry, I have seen many such "Cover ups" often with the full compliance of the Courts and the Local District Attorneys. Happens all the time, as the Courts have to decide how to make sure the victim is punished less then the perpetrators AND that privacy of the Victim is maintained (Which also tends to protect the perpetrators). Most people want such situations over and done with, and that is what most "Cover Ups" tend to be, the victim wanting the situation to end AND the perpetrator given enough restrictions so the harm can NOT repeat. That appears to be what the Boy Scouts were trying to do with this list, keep tabs on potential problem people. In many ways that should be encouraged and turning such a list over to lawyers is one way to DISCOURAGED internal addressing of the problem.
Yes, we all what such perpetrators punished, but do we want the victim punished worse? Do we what to encourage such internal record keeping so organization like the Boy Scouts can prevent as many of these perpetrators from doing more harm (or do we want them to just ignore such situations and hope that it would go away, that is what the Catholic Bishops in the Catholic Church did and we can see how well that worked out). It is a difficult situation and I hope the Judge will consider all the factors in this case, and apparently the Texas Court of Appeals has. We may dislike the decision, but at least the issue is being addressed not ignored.
= new reply since forum marked as read
