Anabaptist Sex Offender Watch List

[Robert]

I think a watch list based on anything short of conviction is a ridiculous idea on multiple levels, one very simple one being that lawsuits would shut it right down.

Thought we were not supposed to sue.

I totally agree that the accused should not be listed and I am not fond of listing those criminally convicted, but would have less issue with that.

[steve-in-kville]

And there is a difference between sin and crime. And a difference between respecting privacy and covering up crime. In your example, the young woman committed no crime, she endangered no children, and she posed no future risk of endangering children or any other victims in the future. Church members who respect her privacy aren't covering up a crime or protecting a predator or placing anyone else at risk.

Not to get us off track, but there is a different between fornication/adultery between two consenting adults, and the assault/rape of a child. Not that any of them are right, but there is a difference on the "predator scale."

[Matt]

I think a watch list based on anything short of conviction is a ridiculous idea on multiple levels, one very simple one being that lawsuits would shut it right down.

Thought we were not supposed to sue.

I totally agree that the accused should not be listed and I am not fond of listing those criminally convicted, but would have less issue with that.

And if they're convicted they're already on a list, so what's the point?

I can understand the emotions behind this list idea. However, if the only way this list would stay active is because mennonites don't sue should throw a red flag to anyone that thinks its a good idea. Something that has potential to effect a persons life this drastically to the point of even eliminating their ability to travel with no due process should raise serious concerns.

[RZehr]

I think a watch list based on anything short of conviction is a ridiculous idea on multiple levels, one very simple one being that lawsuits would shut it right down.

Thought we were not supposed to sue.

I totally agree that the accused should not be listed and I am not fond of listing those criminally convicted, but would have less issue with that.

We also aren't supposed to do the things that would put us on such a list. Some would not sue. All it would take is one, and I'm guessing the list would not be limited to people who don't sue. Or is the plan to only list people who don't sue? That would fit nicely with the perception that Trudy targets plain people.

[RZehr]

This deal wasn't something that no one knew about. It was something that happened, and someone decided that it would be okay to send JMast to Haiti again. The problem was the decision making, not simply that no one knew.

[Ken]

I don’t think adultery is a sin that needs kept secret, though. There are some things that a former chronic adulterer, now repentant, simply shouldn’t do.

If things are secret we have no idea who is chronic. If I had committed adultery in the past I would not hide it - it would be part of my testimony of how Jesus changed and washed me.

But there is a difference between keeping one's own secrets and being part of a church that respects no one's privacy. That just becomes endless gossiping. "I saw Beth in the beer section of the grocery last week!" "Did you hear the Smith's went to Atlantic City on vacation last July?" "Did you see Susan at the donut shop? she needs to stay away from sweets, bless her heart" "Did you see the Jones' new car? A little bit too fancy don't you think?" the small town Pennsylvania Mennonite church my mother grew up in was much like that. I know she grew weary of it.

What was it about sin and casting the first stone?

[Judas Maccabeus]

And there is a difference between sin and crime. And a difference between respecting privacy and covering up crime. In your example, the young woman committed no crime, she endangered no children, and she posed no future risk of endangering children or any other victims in the future. Church members who respect her privacy aren't covering up a crime or protecting a predator or placing anyone else at risk.

Not to get us off track, but there is a different between fornication/adultery between two consenting adults, and the assault/rape of a child. Not that any of them are right, but there is a difference on the "predator scale."

One is a sin that is a church matter

The other is both a sin and a crime, which must involve the civil authorities.

J.M.

[Robert]

We also aren't supposed to do the things that would put us on such a list. Some would not sue. All it would take is one, and I'm guessing the list would not be limited to people who don't sue. Or is the plan to only list people who don't sue? That would fit nicely with the perception that Trudy targets plain people.

If someone is convicted in a civil court, they are already added to a sex offenders list. So this would duplicate that and add others who could be falsely accused. This would be my issue. We do need to protect our children. Just protecting them from known offenders still leaves them open to new or unknown offenders. A list will not stop that, but healthy boundaries and accountability will reduce it.

[ohio jones]

A similar list already exists, easily found by searching the web. It appears to be limited to cases supported by credible documentation, some of which is posted. I would be very surprised if Trudy is unaware of its existence. Do we really need another, more secretive list?

[Aurien]

A similar list already exists, easily found by searching the web. It appears to be limited to cases supported by credible documentation, some of which is posted. I would be very surprised if Trudy is unaware of its existence. Do we really need another, more secretive list?

If you're talking about the MAP list that's a very limited list compared to the number of sex offenders in Anabaptist communities.