in the case of child sexual abuse all informed and sane Orthodox Rabbinic authorities have and will continue to indicate that the victims should go directly to the Police and perpetrators should be reported to the Police without a second thought.
“Rabbinic means”, whatever that implies, is irrelevant in relation to such heinous crimes, no one should entertain the idea that a Rabbi will cover up their criminality.

No. 1, it ignores the crime already committed, which means it also ignores the victim!
No. 2, usually ‘Rabbinical means’ of dealing with the issue wouldn’t comprise specialist knowledge of psychology in the sexual abuse area, or any other area for that matter.
No. 3, how would it be known the offender hadn’t committed further crimes in the twenty year period?

The ‘alternative method’, as you put it, which is the Australian police and court systems, is all we have, Otto. Your deeming it ineffective, which in some areas is the case, such as the drug scenario, which should be treated as the illness it is for those addicted, and handled in the way Portugal and Switzerland handle it, reducing crime in relation to it by 50%, is well and good. Still, this is where the crime of sexual abuse of children firmly belongs, full stop. I’m sure the system could cater to visits to prison by Rabbis if they want to use Rabbinical means to assist the perpetrator as a complementary thing. It would be cheaper than air tickets to the US or Israel, too.

You need to finally and unequivocally separate Jewish law and ‘Rabbinical means’ from the Australian judiciary system – it’s not appropriate to compare them where criminal acts are concerned.

a number of Rabbis created the problems, a number responded inappropriately, both groups need to retire and let their untainted colleagues get on with reestablishing Rabbinic credibility in Australia.

Dear Liat

I admire the clear road you have taken in scrutinising matters legal in relation to ethics, due process and, most importantly the effectiveness in the process of remedy, correction of behaviour, ultimately social responsibility.
I will remind that one of the more serious charges against a Rabbi’s statement’s at the Commission was the unacceptable – by commentators – that if a transgressor ceases to perpetrate a certain offense over a period of twenty years altogether that perpetrator may , logically, be ridden of whatever possessed him/her to commit the act in the first place. The proposition was deemed unacceptable solely in the context of the perpetrator being “treated” through Rabbinical “means”.
My question addresses the effectiveness of the alternative method i.e. “normal” justice, courts, jails etc. in comparison to the “Jewish proposition” as forwarded by the Rabbi, for which he was promptly considered reprehensible. While I cannot profess loss of confidence in our religion and its highest “servants” , I would venture that it is not an abandonment of Jewish faith/face for our soiritual leaders, indeed respective institutions to work together with all other legal entities on a complementary basis. Even so, considering the success ratio of behaviour correction in the horrible area of child molestation, I cannot venture any suggestion in terms of effective punitive and/or desirable correction. Anecdotally, at least to me, jails are mostly places where immoral/criminal behaviour is festering ……. rather than offering hopes for changes in attitude/criminality.

I am still strong of the opinion that all our Rebonim had the best intentions in all they have done, otherwise why don’t people demand the sacking of the entire DPP, Dept. of Justice, jail Govs. etc. on account of the number of badly supported charges in courts and, then, even after legal due process, child molesters released from prison reoffend and that is not just in the child molestation area. Need I remind you of the tragic Martin Place recent tragedy and so many other similar cases of a justice system which failed !
This is not at all to say that, as I said already, our spiritual, educational leaders must not refer all cases of child abuse/molestation, as well as any other crimes to the lay Australian law.

LET’S TALK COMPARATIVE COMPETENCE !!!

Nothing in life is ‘guaranteed’ when seeking to deal with a problem, Jewish or non-Jewish in method. Offenders who are jailed can be offered rehabilitation and if they genuinely reform hopefully live differently when out in society again. Yes, many do re-offend, especially people who have been in the pattern of sexual abuse offences. What would you do with them?

Dear Liat
re the second part of your comments, yes the law of the land, but you seem to dismiss the fact that Jewish law is also relevant and, most importantly that Jewish law is NOT in contradiction to the law of the land. There is no moral distinction between the two laws in regards to the matters discussed or any other matters. In both “worlds” transgressions occur and those transgressions do not define the laws.
What we must look into is the degree of “transgression” our Rabbis are being accused of. I happen to believe that the Rabbis in question had the best intentions and even that their “method” was not inconsistent with the same good intentions.
HERE YOU MUST address the most relevant: does the non-Jewish method guarantee the best method of dealing with the same problem !!! How many people accused and jailed for the same crimes are released only to offend again !!!

Scneur (sic)

ask people you trust to be reliable on matters logical if what you said makes sense at all.
Your premise that they are the are doing a “wonderful job” does not sit at all with your conclusion that the same must be dismissed, not to mention the alternatives you consider…from wonderful to destitute just because you said so.

The Rebbe would be extremely irate at the utterance of a number of Rabbis, some have resigned others need to be removed, including Feldman senior and Telsner.