Author’s note --
For the benefit of those who are not familiar with my Mesira series, I highly
recommend to read the following two posts of the series: Child Abuse and Fire and Desperate Measures.
I have been writing about this sordid topic for well
over a year and the insight that I have gleaned from it has enabled me to
compose a concise set of guidelines - a kind of general summary.
I have wanted to write this post for some time but the
subject seemed to have played itself out and gone dormant in the Jewish
blogosphere and I had no desire to revive it. You might say that I needed to wait for a "trigger" to come back to it.
Well, the “trigger” came over Chanukah when several very
popular blogs (HERE and HERE) that specialize in this issue embedded a video of a telecast
given by Harav Shraga Feivel Zimmerman, Shlita of Gateshead. This telecast was
made for the benefit of Kollel Beth HaTalmud in Melbourne, Australia (of all
places). The telecast carries the title: “Halachic Obligation of Reporting Abuse to Authorities.”
As the title implies, the telecast was focusing on the “Obligation”,
i.e., the hetteirim, for Mesira that are supported within Halacha. Rabbi Zimmerman spent most of the shiur emphasizing the tzad hetter -
all of the sources and circumstances that mattir and even obligate one to
report confirmed predators to secular authorities in cut and dried cases. He
did not spend much time emphasizing the tzad issur - the risks and dangers, Halachic and otherwise,
that are inherent when the circumstances do not meet the criteria of the
sources – which I happen to believe are the majority of cases. As such, it was somewhat imbalanced.
So it seems that his lecture requires a little bit of
balance. And since nobody else is doing it, I shall volunteer for the job. Trust
me, there is no glamor in it (glamour, if you are from Gateshead or Melborne). It’s not a pretty job but…someone’s gotta do it.
I plan to discuss his telecast in detail in a future
post, but for now, I think it is important to summarize the basic tenets of the
Halachos of Mesira that were scattered throughout the previous 18 or so Mesira
posts. I call the guide Mind your “P”s and “C”s. (You can
probably substitute “Q”s for the “C”s since they basically sound the same.) This
is because there are two categories.
P – Prerequisites (or Protective
Options)
C – Conventions (or Chofetz
Chaim)
Each category has three rules. The 3 “P”s and the
3 ”C”s. In this post, we will examine the “P” category. The “C”
category will require a second post. Here we go:
P – Prerequisites (Protective Options):
Proximity
– Publicity – Punishment
Before there can be any hetter to be moser, there must
be a need to be moser. In other words, why should I want to be moser someone to
secular authorities in the first place?
The short answer is that there is supposedly some sexual
abuse going on and I want to put a stop to it. But why?
Because the victims are getting hurt. I want them to
stop getting hurt. Or, in other words, I want to protect the
actual or potential victims.
Okay, so our goal is protection. What do
we need to do to accomplish this goal?
We need to take protective measures. But
the forcefulness and degree of these protective measures depends on how serious
the situation is. Thus, we can assign protective measures at three levels (in
order):
1. Proximity (Prevention)
2. Publicity (Pirsum)
3. Punishment (Police and Prison)
As you can probably guess, #3 is the ultimate
protective measure that requires the Hetter Mesira. What is just as obvious,
but most kanayim don’t want to admit, is that in many cases, measures #1 and/or
#2 is sufficient to achieve the necessary protection. In these cases, there is
no need to resort to measure #3 and, consequently, no excuse to actively
facilitate it through mesira.
What are these measures? Let’s see.
Proximity
There are two types of proximity: Distance
(location) and Time.
Distance -
Abuse occurs when a predator and a victim are in the same location (at the same
time). Hence, there can be a very simple method of preventing abuse. Simply, see to it that the predator and the
past or potential victim are not secluded in the same proximity (or location).
I wrote about this in detail in my post about Child Abuse and Fire. In
many cases, especially what I called Class A Child Abuse
(Domestic) the abuser has a fixed domain for perpetrating the abuse such as a
father or big brother in a home situation and likewise a Rebbe in a school or a
counselor in a camp.
I wrote that in cases like these, there is a relatively
simple remedy for protecting the victims which is to distance one party or the
other from the hazardous domain. In the case of a Rebbe or counselor (or
peeping Tom rabbi), it may be sufficient to relieve them from their post. In a
domestic case involving young children, it will require removing either the
abuser or the victim(s) from the home.
This is obviously not as simple as I am making it.
Frequently, it requires the intervention of secular authorities (though not
necessarily the police) to accomplish this separation. I would say that if this
intervention is necessary and it is the sole purpose of contacting the
authorities, this is not considered mesira because there is no intention of
causing any harm to the alleged perpetrator. (See Tzitz Eliezer 19:52)
If the victims are teenage children or adults (spouse),
it might be emotionally difficult to relocate but logistically not very hard to
do.
Time – Here I am
referring to a situation when one was abused in the past but is no longer in
danger. Thus, time creates the necessary separation between the
victim and the abuser. At least in the case of this victim, there is no current
need for further protection.
But this is only from the perspective of the victim.
From the side of the abuser, I had another factor in mind. To explain this, I
must refer to a startling statistic stated by Rav Yehoshuah Berman of Maaneh
Institute in his Headlines interview with Reb Dovid Lichtenstein Nov.
19, 2016 (47:15). He stated as an unconfirmed statistic that more than 60% of sexual
abusers are minors with about 50% being aged 14 or younger!
I always suspected something along these lines (not as
drastic) but this is the first time I heard it said from the mouth of a real
askan. What it says is that most sexual
abusers of young children are not pedophiles nor are they even sex addicts or dysfunctional.
These are youngsters who are first coming to terms with their own sexuality or may have been freshly introduced to p0rnography and
have no kosher outlets to deal with their new-found lusts. This is called “acting
out” and from a legal standpoint it is called “sexual impropriety”. What it
says is that, for many of them, it is only a matter of maturity and the
opportunity for a healthy sexual relationship to straighten them out. It means
they may actually grow out of their abusiveness and are highly curable.
This case won’t reduce the trauma of the victim and we
still need to deal with the abuse but I hope we can all agree that measure #3
is not an option in these [60% of] cases.
Publicity
Now many of you will ask: we can fire the Rebbe or get
the father or brother out of the house, but these folks still harbor the
tendency to abuse others and will probably seek out other targets in other
venues. Likewise, we cannot expect this to work in the case of full-grown Communal or Pedophilic abusers (what I called Class B Child Abuse). How do we protect potential future victims?
Aside from the fact that there will never be a
fool-proof method (see HERE), even when we use the most extreme measures, but we all know that an
ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure. As long as we have
identified a predator, it is relatively easy to protect potential victims by
ensuring that they steer clear of the predator. Of course, this means letting
as many people as possible know that this person is a risk, so it is often
necessary to supplement measure #1 with a good dose of measure #2 - Publicity.
This means maintaining sex offender registries and perhaps posting notices (dropping
leaflets from helicopters?) that a confirmed predator is in the area.
Aside from alerting the public, this measure carries the added advantage that the predator is put on notice that he/she is being watched. People generally behave much better under these conditions.
Aside from alerting the public, this measure carries the added advantage that the predator is put on notice that he/she is being watched. People generally behave much better under these conditions.
Of course, this also must clear the hurdles of Lashon
Harah and malshinus but it is certainly not malshinus at the level of mesira to
non-Jews and as such, is not too difficult to permit.
Needless to say, we can include in this measure proper child safety education which has shown to be extremely effective.
Needless to say, we can include in this measure proper child safety education which has shown to be extremely effective.
Punishment (Police/Prison)
Aside from enforcing a separation or restraining order
when an abuser refuses to comply with this requirement, as indicated earlier,
there is only one reason to involve law enforcement in a case of sexual abuse:
to “solve” things once and for all by getting the predator locked up.
I think that in most cases, little to nothing is
accomplished because the predator does not wind up getting locked up or it’s
not for a significant amount of time. In so many cases of sexual abuse (as I am
led to believe in the case of the older Kolko), the nature of the abuse did not
reach true sexual contact and was merely “inappropriate touching” which, in the
US, is usually 2nd degree sexual abuse – a mere misdemeanor. Though
the victims in cases like this are genuinely devastated (as one testified to
Dovid Lichtenstein), the offense is not overly jailable. Lastly, jail is not
likely to happen unless the victim is prepared to press charges (and actually
does so), which opens the door to emotional and Halachic issues (לא יקום עד אחד) that go beyond simple day-to-day mesira.
Hence, resorting to this extreme measure does not offer
much in terms of protection.
Of course, there are extreme cases where the predator
is completely sociopathic, aggressive, and incurable and needs to be locked up.
There are even cases of abusers who tell the authorities or their handlers that they need to be
locked up. But from what I have been hearing and reading, this extreme is a
very minute percentage of actual cases.
The real reason people want to resort to this measure
is to punish the predator and see that he pays for his actions. They use the
need to protect victims as the justification for taking this step. If it is truly
necessary to resort to this measure for protection – i.e., the previous two
measures are not sufficient – then, and only then, can we explore the
stipulations of mesira. If it is not necessary, then it is merely nekama
couched as “bringing the predator to justice”.
In our generation we are not authorized to dan dinei
knasos, administer corporal punishments, or mete out “justice”. And even in the
“good old days”, this was for beis din to do, not the individual.
So before we consider mesira to the non-Jewish
authorities, we have to use the 3 “P”s to determine if it the mesira is really
called for. In the event that it is called for, we must familiarize ourselves with
the 3 “C”s.
Stay tuned…
No comments:
Post a Comment