Re: Youth Protection reporting
Paul H. Brown (phbrown@CAPACCESS.ORG)
Mon, 10 Apr 1995 07:46:58 -0400
On Sat, 8 Apr 1995, Bruce A. Black wrote:
> This sounds very unfair, but I realized it is for the protection of the
> program and the boys. My SE emphasized that no accusation he is aware of has
> ever turned out to be unfounded, so the assumption has to be "unfit to be a
> Scouter until proven otherwise.
> Don't know if this is true nationally, but our council reports the incident
> to state authorities immediately and does no investigation of its own. Only
> if the Scouter is eventually cleared by the state is he/she eligible for
I understand the "unfit to be a Scouter until proven otherwise," but what
proof is accepted/required? The state needs to prove its criminal case
"beyond a reasonable doubt." Anything less doesn't result in a
conviction. Is lack of conviction, then, "cleared by the state?" The
state never says that someone is innocent, only that he/she is "not
guilty." Is "not guilty" enough for the scouting program? I don't think so.
The reason I don't think so is that the standard of proof for civil
liability lawsuits against the scouts (or anyone else, for that matter) is
the "preponderance of evidence," or >50% chance that the person did what
was alleged. This difference between "beyond a reasonable doubt" for
criminal cases, and a much lesser standard for civil cases, leads me to
believe that BSA is likely to require a standard of proof of "Innocent
beyond a reasonable doubt" for reinstatement. This is likely to be an
insurmountable standard, and will effectively remove an accused Scouter
from the program for life.
Any comments from the group? Am I missing something in my analysis?
Terry Howerton Sakima Group, Inc. SCOUTER Magazine Kansas City