Latest Re: Restricted Files from L.A. Times

[RememberSchiff]

 

Slusher: In 1972 at age 19, he abuses scouts at a Boy Scout camp in Germany, BSA sends him back to USA, police are not notified in Germany or US though a "file" begins. In June, 1976, BSA re-registers him (Why???) though local councils says he cannot be a SM. Slusher apparently becomes SM in two troops (Huh???). Molests at least 8 scouts. In Feb, 1997, when BSA finally reports to Authorities, he is arrested, pleads guilty, convicted in May, 97 and imprisoned (away from kids) until paroled in 1984 (why?). In 1990, outside of scouting, he ran a pornography ring involving young boys, is reported, convicted (3 counts plus convicted as habitual offender), sentenced to two concurrent 25 year sentences and one consecutive 25 year sentence. He has lost one appeal after another and remains in a Colorado prison.

 

Only beef I can see with the Authorities was a parole release in 1984 (7 years of a 10 year sentence?).

[SeattlePioneer]

>

 

 

 

If you report an incident to the police, then THEY are responsible for the follow up. If they do a poor job or there aren't sufficient facts to procede, you and BSA have taken the most effective action possible.

 

The current YPT rules require:

 

1. Call the cops first to report an incident.

 

2. Call the council and report an incident to the Scout Executive.

 

The news media and plaintiff's lawyers make this the necessary policy whether we like it or not. The days of BSA relying on it's own methods and practices to protect youth are past.

 

Whether the cops do a better job isn't really the issue.

[Mr. Boyce]

You know, one reason I got back into scouting was because my wife felt the organization could use some good men!

 

Perverts, creeps (and men who like males), are always going to plague youth organizations.

 

The nice thing about sports is that everything's more visible. But the BSA is always going to have a problem: think Willie Sutton here: when asked why he robbed banks, he said, "that's where the money is." You're a creep, you hang out around schools, sports, etc.

 

I have some animosity here because I hate having to be anxious about this stuff. Much nicer if the danger didn't exist.

 

I, for one, would like a good general history of how sexual predators were viewed, understood, treated or not treated, etc.

 

I suspect that we're condemning the past, although the past felt it was using the very latest scientific understandings of creepitude.

[Peregrinator]

If you report an incident to the police, then THEY are responsible for the follow up.

 

I would think that both are responsible (the police and the youth organization). Of course the police are responsible if any arrests need to be made, the district attorney is responsible for pressing charges, etc.; but the youth organization is still responsible for the children in its charge. Even if the public authorities decline to make an arrest or press charges, the organization must still try to determine whether the allegations are founded or unfounded. And if they determine that the allegations are founded, then they have a responsibility to act (for example, by revoking membership).

[fred8033]

Slusher - Quick clarifications.

 

- He was BSA employed in Germany. I don't see any record he was employed by BSA in US.

- Could not bring 1972 issues to local USA police attention as it was not in the USA.

- The 1972 case was discussed with the scout parents. The parents didn't contact the police either.

- He was registered in a different troop then his original troop when he returned. That troop was probably not notified about him.

- Later he was unregistered / removed in early 1976. Police arrested him in 1977.

 

Given how old paper records were handled, I could see issues like this happening. But it sounds like the council / BSA did a good faith effort to get rid of him.

[Beavah]

If you report an incident to the police, then THEY are responsible for the follow up. If they do a poor job or there aren't sufficient facts to procede, you and BSA have taken the most effective action possible.

 

No, yeh haven't.

 

Da standards for conviction are and should be much different than da standards for not allowin' somebody to be a youth volunteer. If yeh set the default response to be that of the criminal justice system, then yeh are allowing a lot of people access to kids who shouldn't be allowed access. Yeh are surrendering to "the authorities" your judgment and your responsibility. That is at least morally negligent in my book. We as scout volunteers have a duty which is different than the duty of da justice system.

 

B

 

[NealOnWheels]

Beavah you are absolutely correct.

 

I know of a Scouter who was arrested for abusing a scout. The police obtained a search warrant for his home to gather evidence. During the search they came across a journal written by the Scouter detailing the abuse with that scout and other scouts. It was very strong evidence to the man's guilt.

 

However during trial the journal was allowed because it was not on the list of items contained in the warrant. And because the prosecution had publicly announced the existence of the journal and the details in the journal the judge spent considerable time deliberating whether or not to dismiss the case.

 

Fortunately the man was eventually convicted on other evidence. This case could have been dismissed or led to an acquittal. If that had we would still have the responsibility to keep this person out of scouting.

[SeattlePioneer]

>

 

 

BSA has tried the route of tracking predators. That doesn't work either.

 

The YPT guidelines are a new strategy, and among the methods used are rules that require reporting incidents to the police.

 

No one method is likely to always be effective, but I hope that the combined methods will be a lot more effective than those used up to now.

 

If you don't like mandatory reporting requirements Beavah, fine. My intention is to conform to YPT rules and hope for the best.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Beavah]

If you don't like mandatory reporting requirements Beavah, fine.

 

I don't mind mandatory reportin' requirements, actually. I firmly support them for suspicions of child abuse when those suspicions are held by professionals who have experience in such things (teachers, health care workers, etc.), so that the quality of their judgment is higher than average.

 

I just have seen da enormous damage that can be done to kids and families and programs through unjust or unjustified reportin' by mindless amateurs. To me, it's not worth all that harm and resource expenditure just because yeh imagine that perhaps maybe it might be helpful in a wishful thinkin' sort of way at catching one low-probability perpetrator a bit earlier on.

 

This thread, though, is about da Ineligible Volunteer Files. From what I'm seein' in a first cursory look through at what the media is reportin' and what has been released, I see a genuine good-faith effort by the BSA to protect kids usin' the resources at their disposal. An effort that was well ahead of its time and was more effective than what "authorities" and professional organizations were (or even are) doin'. Do yeh think that public schools were anywhere near as successful at preventin' molestation by coaches and teachers who jumped jurisdictional boundaries? I can assure yeh they were not. We've already seen that churches were not, and I can assure yeh that failure was not confined to da Catholics. If yeh think that da justice system has a magically great record on this stuff, yeh clearly have not had contact with da justice system.

 

So what we have is a volunteer NFP organization that did the best they could, and did a decent job. Frankly, I'm proud of the effort the BSA made. I don't expect 'em to be perfect, and I don't blame 'em for those cases where a serial perpetrator managed to get to victims. That serial perpetrator got past da local authorities and the local community and the boy's family and parents as well, eh? I don't blame the BSA, the local community, or the boy's parents for that. I blame da perpetrator.

 

Beavah

 

[Tampa Turtle]

I agree that the standards for being a volunteer is not the same for conviction. (obviously)

 

I want to have a right to a fair trial and not a false conviction. I DO NOT have a right, no matter how much I want it, to be a Scouter. For example, If I am a grade-A jerk of a Scouter who is impatient, careless, and angry with the boys maybe I should be barred even though it is not a crime...

 

If I am an adult who lusts for young boys even if I have never acted on it I probably shouldn't be a scouter either even if I haven't committed a crime.

[Beavah]

For good or ill, that's not what the law is.

 

Speakin' for da law are yeh now? That's interestin'. Unfortunately, da law speaks for itself and what I described is exactly what the law is in da majority of states.

 

I think yeh similarly misinterpret or mischaracterize the nature of lawsuits related to this stuff. It's quite different from what yeh seem to believe it is.

 

There's nothing wrong with trainin' the youth. I would encourage it, provided it is done well. I would discourage it, if it is done poorly. Most of da recent BSA stuff is pretty poor.

 

Most importantly, I reckon it's vital to be honest with each other and ourselves, eh? There's no evidence to suggest that any of this stuff - YPT, reporting, training youth, etc. is at all effective at protecting youth, and only speculation that it might serve as a legal fig leaf. That's right. In all likelihood none of this stuff matters a lick. Your faith in "the rules" put together by a few folks in a NFP office is completely misplaced. It's like da folks who believe expelling 6 year olds for butter knives is somehow goin' to stop Dylan Klebold from shootin' up Columbine High.

 

First do no harm. A culture of reportin' and expellin' folks for stuff that is trivial does great harm to relationships and communities, eh? That harm makes it easier for predators to slip in, not harder. Failin' to exercise common-sense judgment is da definition of negligence.

 

Beavah

 

 

 

[Oak Tree]

One of the rules requires annual training of YOUTH in YPT rules.

 

What rule is that? I know the BSA says the video "should be viewed by troops annually" - but I regard that as a recommendation, not a requirement. But them I'm accustomed to documents where SHOULD means it's optional, and MUST means it's required.

 

Besides, that video is about the "three R's", and not YPT rules. Where does it say that we are to teach the youth about YPT rules?