Anabaptist Sex Offender Watch List

[joshuabgood]

Mennonite Abuse Prevention has a list.

[barnhart]

Is this a similar project to the list the Southern Baptist convention said for years they were not able to create because of the diverse and independent nature of their alliance.

[JohnH]

What if a list was compiled from Megan's Law? Without making any judgment on whether the courts decisions were accurate or not.

I'm not sure a list should be made... I feel bad for the victims of abuse. I feel bad for the victims of an unjust accusation or an unjust trial. Both need advocates.

What would be the value in compiling such a list?
What biblical guidance would we have to encourage such a project?
Would such a list, especially if published online, be most likely to be used in a way that is in accordance with Scripture?

The Bible is pretty clear about excommunications, and also about bringing a dispute that cannot be resolved simply before the whole church.

Is this a similar project to the list the Southern Baptist convention said for years they were not able to create because of the diverse and independent nature of their alliance.

Such "lists' would need to have operated at the regional conference, etc. level.

The thing is, it's quite unlikely for most of the plain people to access such a list. It mostly becomes fodder for the ex-conservatives to sound off on.

That's why it should be operated by the various denominations plain people are part of. Then they would be able to both access it and respect it. It would be "their" list.

I question the fairness of such a list not to mention who is even qualified to produce such a list. I fail to see such a list be effective in protecting plain people in particular unless there is a Menno+Amish wide movement that makes such a list accessible to everyone in their constituency.

Congregations are certainly qualified to assess if a member of theirs has fallen into sin, and to discipline, excommunicate, etc. them. For grievous sexual offences, I think this information should be kept as a permanent, public record. It should be accessible to other members in the denomination, and also should be made available to committees, organisations, etc. that denomination participates in (or its members do).

I would like to think that a verdict by a vetted jury is as fair as possible and free from bias. Of course no human is perfect but we are talking about a panel of individuals not a single person.

That's very optimistic. I would, however, be mostly confident in criminal convictions simply because the bar is so high to clear, yet we have the information now that DNA has exonerated around 25% of people who were previously convicted.

Ultimately our churches should be identifying people falling into these sins in our midst and dealing with it, in addition to whatever the courts do.

[Judas Maccabeus]

Mennonite Abuse Prevention has a list.

I have looked at this list to check if the case I know about is present. It is. This could be a useful resource.

However, as I have almost certainly pointed out, lists only catch repeat offenders.

[Ernie]

That's very optimistic. I would, however, be mostly confident in criminal convictions simply because the bar is so high to clear, yet we have the information now that DNA has exonerated around 25% of people who were previously convicted.

Interesting. My recent guess, based on what I have heard and observed, would have been about 20% falsely accused.

[JohnH]

That's very optimistic. I would, however, be mostly confident in criminal convictions simply because the bar is so high to clear, yet we have the information now that DNA has exonerated around 25% of people who were previously convicted.

Interesting. My recent guess, based on what I have heard and observed, would have been about 20% falsely accused.

From The Innocence Project:

Statistics
As of January 2020, the Innocence Project has documented over 375 DNA exonerations in the United States. Twenty-one of these exonerees had previously been sentenced to death.

The vast majority (97%) of these people were wrongfully convicted of committing sexual assault and/or murder. Although these individuals were innocent of these crimes, approximately 25% had confessed and 11% had pleaded guilty. These exonerees spent an average of 14 years in prison–10% of whom spent 25 years or more in prison for crimes they didn’t commit.

Based on that, it seems reasonable to assume that 25% of people who are convicted are not actually guilty (even if they confessed or pled guilty).

[MennoSimons1998]

What are the opinions of people on this thread about a hypothetical list/service that only strictly lists sex offenders from Anabaptist communities who have been convicted in the court of law, and are also shown on secular sex offender registries, so therefore, such a hypothetical list would just be simply grabbing the names of RSOs from already pre-existing public SO registries that the average citizen can easily look for?

I am neither supporting nor opposing anything, I just want to hear your thoughts on this, as this is an idea that I had for a fictional novel centered around conservative plain communities that I am writing.

[JohnH]

What are the opinions of people on this thread about a hypothetical list/service that only strictly lists sex offenders from Anabaptist communities who have been convicted in the court of law, and are also shown on secular sex offender registries, so therefore, such a hypothetical list would just be simply grabbing the names of RSOs from already pre-existing public SO registries that the average citizen can easily look for?

I am neither supporting nor opposing anything, I just want to hear your thoughts on this, as this is an idea that I had for a fictional novel centered around conservative plain communities that I am writing.

It would be a good idea, but it would still make the usual people very angry with you - witness the recent brouhaha over the Leroy Miller situation, where certain parties are griping that anyone would dare to bring up his past convictions on "social media", as if it's somehow wrong to do so.