Chaim Walder dies

[S209]

There is a huge difference between warning potential victims and blasting it on the internet.

Is there? Can you define it? Remember, you never know where the perp will head to prey on his next victim.

[VacationLover]

If you are a witness to someone abusing a child, would you consider it suppression to not warn others who may be his next victim?

If you are a witness I believe it is very different. Especially if he is a danger to others. I wouldn't comment on such a scenario.

In my dictionary, "suppression" means 'putting and end to'. All I'm saying is don't publices, or rather don't forward unverified information. (Unless a BD etc. Says/agrees to)

[S209]

There is no middle (& certainly not today with social media). Once there’s accusations it must be made public to warn other potential victims. But by going public the accused is now destroyed. That’s just life.
Say the accused is a teacher/therapist, the minute there’s an accusation he must be removed from his job, even though his livelihood is now destroyed. Let’s say the case goes nowhere how do you ever let him teach again ? He might still be a sick predator but the victim doesn’t want to pursue it, or it was somehow settled quietly. The only way I’m ever comfortable with him going near kids again is if the victim publicly announces to the world that it was all fabricated.
It’s not fair but that’s the reality.

[S209]

If you are a witness I believe it is very different. Especially if he is a danger to others. I wouldn't comment on such a scenario.

So who should refrain from announcing publicly?

In my dictionary, "suppression" means 'putting and end to'. All I'm saying is don't publices, or rather don't forward unverified information. (Unless a BD etc. Says/agrees to)

sup·press
/səˈpres/ prevent the dissemination of (information).
"the report had been suppressed"

[VacationLover]

So who should refrain from announcing publicly?

sup·press
/səˈpres/ prevent the dissemination of (information).
"the report had been suppressed"

see attached

[avromie7]

Is there? Can you define it? Remember, you never know where the perp will head to prey on his next victim.

If the person is in a position that gives him access to children that would have to be stopped (rebbi, therapist, etc.). In Shul there can be guidelines put in place to prevent him from ever being able to be alone with children. If you're worried about him grabbing a random kid (like in the kids speak story), no amount of publicity can stop that.

[aygart]

If the person is in a position that gives him access to children that would have to be stopped (rebbi, therapist, etc.). In Shul there can be guidelines put in place to prevent him from ever being able to be alone with children. If you're worried about him grabbing a random kid (like in the kids speak story), no amount of publicity can stop that.

What about a rebbi who was fired befriending a child on the street like the story 3 before that (from what I saw on Google books)?

[Yehuda57]

If the person is a regular, upstanding member of the community, s/he can always groom and harm children unbeknownst to parents. One need not be a teacher, therapist, or have a job working with children to abuse children. That's a big part of what makes this so difficult. And this is not even considering the effect on survivors of seeing an abuser in honorable or prominent positions (not related to children, say, event production), nor the angle of a deterrent. (I think pretty much everyone agrees - al pi seichel - that retribution or vengeance should not be part of the equation.)

[WAM]

Sorry, it's ז:ה
פרק ז הלכה ב
Read the footnotes and the * on the footnote.

[S209]

If you're worried about him grabbing a random kid (like in the kids speak story), no amount of publicity can stop that.

I disagree. It’s not so much the grabbing a child (and of course there are things to put in place to prevent that from occurring *if* someone knows there’s a potential predator in the area) but the grooming that can occur in broad daylight if other parents are not made aware that this specific person poses a threat.

There was a story in Lakewood quite a few years back where a high school girl accused a *very* respected person in the Kehillah of a horrible incident. The girl approached the Yeshiva that employed him who to their credit did at least perform a superficial investigation but nothing was done, authorities were never contacted, and the matter was dropped and kept under wraps.

Fast forward around seven years and a major story broke about this fellow involving quite a few women. The story broke because someone distributed a pamphlet among members of his shul detailing specific incidents. He was subsequently stripped of most Yeshiva/communal duties and the Rav of his shul took a strong stance against him (not outright throwing him out, but not allowing him to participate in many capacities) and the story was publicized. A police investigation was started but stalled almost immediately when nobody wanted to come forward.

If the story would have been publicized years ago, there would be fewer victims. I can’t judge what problem or need is greater but each individual victim who was harmed irreparably after the first incident can be held against anyone who enabled the earlier story to be brushed under the rug.

Many people still defend him (most of whom never bothered to do any research on the facts, but utilizing the knee jerk reaction of “he’s too chashuv to be guilty”) and deny all of the allegations and most members of his community show him great respect and celebrate him, but I’m sure they would not allow their daughters to stay in his home. He is slowly acclimating and regaining some of his former positions, I do not know where he is holding as far as dialogue with victims etc.

ETA: Just want to add that a relative of mine was personally involved in having an out of town girl sleep at that person’s house for some time. If he would have heard such a thing in advance that arrangement would never have occurred and the relative really blames himself for possibly being negligent.

I subsequently spoke to a girl who was a classmate of the original victim. She hadn’t even heard of the scandal but she knew the name of the guy right away and said it was common knowledge in her class but they didn’t spread it for fear of loshon hora.

[VacationLover]

If the person is a regular, upstanding member of the community, s/he can always groom and harm children unbeknownst to parents. One need not be a teacher, therapist, or have a job working with children to abuse children. That's a big part of what makes this so difficult. And this is not even considering the effect on survivors of seeing an abuser in honorable or prominent positions (not related to children, say, event production), nor the angle of a deterrent. (I think pretty much everyone agrees - al pi seichel - that retribution or vengeance should not be part of the equation.)

Agreed.

[avromie7]

I disagree. It’s not so much the grabbing a child (and of course there are things to put in place to prevent that from occurring *if* someone knows there’s a potential predator in the area) but the grooming that can occur in broad daylight if other parents are not made aware that this specific person poses a threat.

There was a story in Lakewood quite a few years back where a high school girl accused a *very* respected person in the Kehillah of a horrible incident. The girl approached the Yeshiva that employed him who to their credit did at least perform a superficial investigation but nothing was done, authorities were never contacted, and the matter was dropped and kept under wraps.

Fast forward around seven years and a major story broke about this fellow involving quite a few women. The story broke because someone distributed a pamphlet among members of his shul detailing specific incidents. He was subsequently stripped of most Yeshiva/communal duties and the Rav of his shul took a strong stance against him (not outright throwing him out, but not allowing him to participate in many capacities) and the story was publicized. A police investigation was started but stalled almost immediately when nobody wanted to come forward.

If the story would have been publicized years ago, there would be fewer victims. I can’t judge what problem or need is greater but each individual victim who was harmed irreparably after the first incident can be held against anyone who enabled the earlier story to be brushed under the rug.

Many people still defend him (most of whom never bothered to do any research on the facts, but utilizing the knee jerk reaction of “he’s too chashuv to be guilty”) and deny all of the allegations and most members of his community show him great respect and celebrate him, but I’m sure they would not allow their daughters to stay in his home. He is slowly acclimating and regaining some of his former positions, I do not know where he is holding as far as dialogue with victims etc.

Ok, so we should inform the people in the neighborhood, this still doesn't require worldwide publicity on social media. I didn't exclude this in my OP, I just listed a few ideas off the top of my head.

The problem is people who brush it under the rug, the solution is not to blast it on social media.

I'm not familiar with the details, but I think you are. There was an issue in the arlington area. A meeting was called for all parents in the neighborhood, but it wasn't blasted on social media. I still don't know who the suspect is there.

[avromie7]

And this is not even considering the effect on survivors of seeing an abuser in honorable or prominent positions (not related to children, say, event production), nor the angle of a deterrent. (I think pretty much everyone agrees - al pi seichel - that retribution or vengeance should not be part of the equation.)

This may very well be true, but once the job of protecting the community is done, you don't have a halachik right to destroy his livelihood because it hurts the survivors. I feel terribly for the survivors, and if I was in their situation I would probably want to destroy their livelihood as well, but it doesn't make it ok halachikly.

[S209]

  I'm not familiar with the details, but I think you are. There was an issue in the arlington area. A meeting was called for all parents in the neighborhood, but it wasn't blasted on social media. I still don't know who the suspect is there.

That story is actually one of the rare exceptions where the person appears to not have posed an active danger to children (an act of abuse was not actually alleged). That story was also terribly mishandled and I know for a fact that several shuls in the neighborhood told him he isn’t welcome. But your point stands- his name wasn’t openly released (although the information is quite easily available, and a link with details was even posted on DDF at the time) and I’m not sure if in general that’s right or wrong. Is it?

As for worldwide publicity. I don’t know. But again I see you are coming around to the fact that there is an unfortunate reality that when someone is accused people do often need to be informed on some level even before the matter is verified. It’s weighing two terrible choices. What’s right? I don’t know. But I don’t believe that it’s clear we should not release information before a matter is finalized. Public safety matters too.

[aygart]

And this is not even considering the effect on survivors of seeing an abuser in honorable or prominent positions (not related to children, say, event production), nor the angle of a deterrent.

I think all agree that these aspects should only be considered after a full investigation.

[Yehuda57]

This may very well be true, but once the job of protecting the community is done, you have a halachik right to destroy his livelihood because it hurts the survivors. I feel terribly for the survivors, and if I was in their situation I would probably want to destroy their livelihood as well, but it doesn't make it ok halachikly.

Typo, I presume?

Right, I said the protection wasn't considering the other implications, because I'm not so sure about them. But it's not about "destroying his livelihood" just for vengeance, but if a survivor can't go to weddings because there's a good chance he'll have a panic attack if he sees an abuser's name plastered all over the stage, that's something to consider, no? Survivors don't go to shul because it's too traumatic for them because they were groomed there or they saw their abuser get honored there. (honor doesn't have to be Gala dinner honoree, it could be something as simple as getting an aliyah, being chazan, or even everyone laughing at his jokes at the kiddush). Should we not prioritize their feelings and ensure they always feel safe and secure in our mosdos?

Obviously, these questions are not black and white, and we're definitely not solving them on DDF, but as has been said from the beginning, it would be nice if as a community we could shift the focus of the conversation to believing victims, education, and prevention, rather than what tends to be the knee jerk reaction of hiding, suppressing, and questioning victims.

[avromie7]

Typo, I presume?

Right, I said the protection wasn't considering the other implications, because I'm not so sure about them. But it's not about "destroying his livelihood" just for vengeance, but if a survivor can't go to weddings because there's a good chance he'll have a panic attack if he sees an abuser's name plastered all over the stage, that's something to consider, no? Survivors don't go to shul because it's too traumatic for them because they were groomed there or they saw their abuser get honored there. (honor doesn't have to be Gala dinner honoree, it could be something as simple as getting an aliyah, being chazan, or even everyone laughing at his jokes at the kiddush). Should we not prioritize their feelings and ensure they always feel safe and secure in our mosdos?

Obviously, these questions are not black and white, and we're definitely not solving them on DDF, but as has been said from the beginning, it would be nice if as a community we could shift the focus of the conversation to believing victims, education, and prevention, rather than what tends to be the knee jerk reaction of hiding, suppressing, and questioning victims.

Thanks, Fixed.

Again, I feel terrible for the survivors, but the solution is not to do things without following halacha. When you feel something should be done a certain way and halacha says otherwise, the solution is to double check your feelings and make sure they are in line with halacha, not to go against halacha.

We should focus on believing and helping victims, education, and prevention, but we also have to make sure we don't go to the opposite extreme of destroy his life first ask questions later.

[AsherO]

destroy his life first ask questions later.

Ironic choice of words, considering the circumstances it sounds like appropriate karma / מדה כנגד מדה

(Not commenting on the halachic applicability of the approach under discussion, just about the irony in your choice of words)

[aygart]

Ironic choice of words, considering the circumstances it sounds like appropriate karma / מדה כנגד מדה

Only if he is truly guilty.

[AsherO]

Only if he is truly guilty.

Agreed, but the immediate context seemed to be about how far we go to accommodate survivors, and in that context (where there are survivors) he's guilty.