Category Archives: Contemporary Life

       There was a typically strong reaction to the sensitive issues addressed in the last post – on dealing with scandal – especially from a number of past victims who called or wrote that I had not been sympathetic enough to their circumstances and the reasons for their reluctance to come forward when their cases were ripe. Indeed, I noted that “there are often cogent and plausible reasons why victims do not come forward, usually to avoid stigma, publicity, or other personal issues. To me, it is the most vexing aspect of these squalid stories.” There are, in fact, many reasons why many (most?) victims do not prosecute. The most understandable reason – alluded to above – is when the victims are children and do not even tell their parents, or their parents persuade them to tell no one else. Some victims are so young when they are assaulted that they suppress memories that are only triggered later in life. Sometimes, the predators themselves are family members or otherwise powerful people which make reporting most unpleasant.

       Some victims were too young, or too disconnected, to even think of going to the police, and as I noted to some, had they gone, for example, to the NYC police in the late 1970s, they likely would have received a nightstick against the head and sent back to school, home, youth group, etc. It is true that society 30-40 years ago was not as sensitive to these issues as we are today. And yet, as noted as well, the wall of silence exists among victims in our time as much as it did in the past. Thus, I stated in reference to local matters I have personally dealt with in which victims did not want to cooperate with the police and prosecution, “Will those same victims come forward anonymously in 2040 and castigate their abuser? I would hope not, despite my revulsion toward the accused. NOW is the time.” Nothing said, heard or written has dissuaded me from that viewpoint.

      Some felt distressed at my effusive praise of the young Satmar woman who did successfully prosecute her abuser, as if praise of one person necessarily implies criticism of others. It re-awakened in victims feelings of guilt and sorrow (all unintentional, of course) because they had chosen silence instead of prosecution, or, if not “chosen” silence, at least had not had any better options. But surely one can laud the achievements of one person without others feeling disparaged. That is a general rule of life.

Some readers were literary deconstructionists, imputing to my words meanings that were heavily influenced by their own experiences and not by anything that I myself had written (I’m excluding from this characterization the hopeless rabbi-haters) and thereby missing the essence of my post: I come not to blame the victims of the past but rather to empower the victims of the present and future.

To me, that is the whole point, and in some sense, at least a partial motivation of those who are now prosecuting through the media. But therein lies the point of departure between my opinion and their current practices. One can have the utmost sympathy for victims and still disapprove of the manner in which they are seeking justice. Perhaps some background will help.

Obviously, as a Rabbi and former attorney, I have been involved with numerous crime victims. Having practiced in both criminal and family courts, I am quite mindful of the hesitation that many victims have in coming forward, as well as the emotional constraints under which they operate. I understand – even empathize – with their dilemmas and it is not my place to determine whether they made the right decision in the past, whatever it was. But the victim’s perspective is unique to the victim, as follows.

Like most people who have lived their lives in the New York metropolitan area, I have been a crime victim about a half-dozen times. Each time, I confess, my reaction was the same: I did not want the perpetrators incarcerated; I wanted them dead. Dead! It didn’t matter to me whether there was an arrest, a trial, or a right to counsel and defense. It didn’t even matter to me that the crimes committed against me were not capital crimes. To me, there was only one acceptable outcome: death for the criminal, and preferably a slow and painful one. Unfortunately, no perps were ever arrested in any of my cases. But that is the perspective of the victim, at least this one.

And none of my cases involved the violation of my person, nor amounted even remotely to the severity of the crimes alleged by children who were abused. Yet, my reaction was always the same, and lingered for some time, and then faded, until the next crime, which fortunately were staggered through the years. In fact, I have never met a complainant (the legal term for a crime victim who prosecutes) who felt that their story should be questioned or that their credibility should be subject to impeachment. Most wanted to go straight from the arrest phase to the sentencing phase, because their story was so vivid and so compelling – to them. That is the perspective of the victim.

But I wrote in this space not from the perspective of the victim, but as a rabbi and attorney – as a rabbi concerned with Torah law and the parameters of lashon hara (disparaging talk about others) and as an attorney concerned about justice and fair play, and the rights even of the accused. It is immensely understandable why victims should not have the mindset and emotional makeup to view these events more dispassionately; again, when I was victimized, I felt the same way. But there is a broader societal interest in resolving these matters in a just and honorable way, in gaining justice through justice, and not through mob action, which is essentially prosecution through media in which the accused cannot mount a defense. There is certainly a broad societal interest in seeing predators in prison and children protected from any harm.

Some have suggested a “to’elet” (a benefit that would justify disparaging another publicly) in that every predator should know that there might be a day of reckoning even after the Statute of Limitations has run – that the glare of publicity in the distant future could lead to his global humiliation and restrain him from repugnant conduct in the present. I am not sure that such is really a deterrent to the sick people who prey on children, but there is a counterargument as well that does not portend well for the victim. It is the downside of prosecution through media.

Imagine for a moment that an accused who can no longer defend himself in a court of law responds publicly, through the media, as follows: “Sure, I remember these kids. I was their teacher/principal/coach/youth leader/rabbi/minister/ Boy Scout master, etc. These were troubled children with emotional problems. They were socially awkward and friendless. I had to show them extra love and attention. Many came from broken homes. Some came on to me, and the proper response would have been to expel them from the school/team/youth group, etc., but I took pity on them because of their emotional state. And that is why the school/synagogue/church/team/troop did not fire me. At the end of the day, it was my word against the word of a troubled, possibly mentally ill, youth. That they so grossly mistook displays of affection, and the fact that I am now subject to these false and vicious accusations 30-40 years later, only shows how disturbed they were, and are. Where do I go to get my reputation back?”

Let’s posit that all the above is completely untrue. But if I was such a victim and forced to read that, the old wounds would reopen, and the old pain would return. I would feel violated again. All I could do would be to restate my accusations and then have the accused restate his responses. By way of analogy, I have personally seen the searing pain of rape victims who sat in court listening to their vicious rapist claim that their relations were consensual, and followed dinner and a movie, and the charges were outrageously false. The psychological pain must be unbearable. But at least that took place in a courtroom where some finality of judgment loomed. In the media? There is no finality, only mud and more mud.

Others have suggested that media exposure forces organizations to investigate themselves and to change their culture of silence and cover-up. I disagree, and sadly declare that no organization – religious, secular, political or corporate – ever investigates itself unless there is pressure from an outside party, and the outside party is almost always the government, i.e., the police and prosecution. Arrests and lawsuits get the attention of organizations far more than sensational articles that can be denied, stonewalled, and no-commented to oblivion, whatever sugary statements are issued.

That is why I reiterate the imperative – the moral obligation – of abuse victims to prosecute in real time. Again, this is not meant as a criticism of past victims but as encouragement to present and future victims – a moral obligation that helps them heal and assuredly helps to protect potential, future victims as well.

So if prosecution by media is morally wrong, and the Statute of Limitations has run, then to where can victims go to get justice? The brutal answer – which will bring no real comfort –is: there is not always justice in this world. I did not receive any justice when I was victimized. More seriously, six million Jews murdered by the Nazis and their accomplices did not receive any justice in this world, and Naava Applebaum and her father David (hy”d), murdered by Arab terrorists the night before her wedding, did not receive any justice in this world. The thousands of Israelis murdered or maimed by Arab terrorists did not receive any justice in this world, and worse, many have lived to see their tormenters freed, walking the streets, living happily with their families and plotting new outrages against the Jewish people.

Justice is not always obtained in this world. That is why there is another world – the World-to-Come – in which justice is absolute, in which all victims are elevated and in which all victimizers are excoriated for eternity. In this world, victims can certainly confront their accusers, and certainly seek therapy and counseling to deal with their victimization. But injustice cannot be rectified through another injustice, and the mere fact that people are accused of crimes for which they can no longer defend themselves adequately strikes me as unjust. It’s the price paid for silence. All victims, for whom my heart cries, have suffered enough. They should be blessed with strength and courage, fortitude and all good things in life, which itself are measures of vindication.

But we are left with my conclusion from last time, and I write again generally and without reference to any specific instance: “Fairness and justice demand that the accusers have our sympathy and the accused have the presumption of innocence.” That is the inherent weakness of prosecution through media and the inherent strength of prosecution through the appropriate authorities.

And I beg victims to come forward, so this scourge can be eliminated from Jewish life and from our world.

       Last week’s media reports of lurid allegations of abuse by several distinguished rabbis and educators are dismaying, horrifying and shocking – but not surprising. I start with three premises that inform the entire approach to these sordid tales.

     First, all human beings are flawed, rabbis included. All people sin, some people’s sins are crimes, and like for any sin or crime, there are gradations of severity that pertain and ultimately define the act.  The abuse of children is especially heinous. Please note that this is not intended at all as a comment on the guilt or innocence of the accused herein, but is meant as a general statement. I cannot pass judgment on the allegations herein.

Second, all crime victims should report the alleged victimization to the police – especially when the allegations involve the abuse or molestation of minors. This is a matter which I addressed in our congregation well over a decade ago, and have reinforced several times: don’t come to me. I cannot investigate or make arrests. Go right to the police and prosecution. They make arrests and prosecute. The judicial system exonerates or punishes. Rabbis have no role, despite what others might argue.

Crimes are police matters, and crimes against children are a classic case of pikuach nefesh (saving lives) that override even the laws against mesira (informing on another Jew). Anyone who thinks it necessary to first consult a panel when children are in potential danger might as well consult a panel when the question becomes whether or not to desecrate Shabbat for someone who is ill. By the time the panel convenes, the patient can be dead. By the time the panel decides whether to report the crime, more children could have been harmed. So crime victims should go right to the police.

Third, the media lie. Sometimes their lies are outright falsehoods, and sometimes their lies are just exaggerations – but lie they do, wantonly and persistently. Some media outlets lie in order to sensationalize their stories and attract more readers, and some media outlets lie in order to further a religious or political agenda they have. This, unfortunately, I know from first-hand experience.

To give but the most recent example, the Israeli broadsheet Haaretz reported last month that I had come under fire for writing in this space about the “Decline and Fall of the American Empire,” especially some comments about the intelligence of the typical Obama voter. To their writing, I had come “under fire,” the congregation was in an “uproar,” the Board was meeting and letters was being circulated. The pressure on me was allegedly intense.

But every single word was an absolute falsehood, an utter fabrication. Haaretz even contacted me before printing their story, and I graciously informed them that it was all untrue. There was no uproar, no fire, no Board meeting, no letter from the Board, no pressure – nothing. A complete invention.  Less than a handful of people disagreed with what I wrote or said, which is likely a weekly occurrence, anyway.  I told Haaretz that if they print such a story, they should know that they are printing a complete untruth. Naturally, they printed it the next day. All it took was one person to tell them (anonymously, of course) that such-and-such was happening, and that the offending party (me) offended their far leftist agenda, and it was published, and then picked up and embellished by web sites that traffic in innuendo and anti-Orthodox bashing. And people read it, thought it is true, and – irony – my reputation was enhanced in the circles I admire most. Nonetheless, lies remain lies, and media lying is a daily occurrence.

The upshot is that, therefore, I take these allegations with less than a grain of salt, especially the anonymous ones.

But here’s my main problem with the lurid allegations that surfaced last week. Of course, we have sympathy for the alleged victims, and we must have sympathy for the alleged victims, both genuinely and because it is politically correct to have sympathy for alleged victims. But the limits of my sympathy are tested when victims do not come forward and prosecute in real time – when the events occur – and instead wait for 20, 30 or even 40 years to come forward and do nothing more than besmirch the reputations of their alleged abusers.

The flip side of coming forward and lodging a complaint with the police is that the accused then have the ability to defend themselves, to have their proverbial day in court. The victims inform the police, testify before the Grand Jury (if appropriate), and testify at trial. They are cross-examined. The victim’s credibility can be impeached.  The defendants can testify as well and mount a defense. A jury of their peers decides their fate.  At the end of the process, the accused are either convicted and punished, or exonerated and pray that they can recover their reputations. Either way, the system is set up to protect both the victims and the accused.

Today, we are operating in an absolutely reprehensible system in which victims choose not to prosecute, and then long after the Statute of Limitations has run and prosecution is impossible, they prosecute through the media – and anonymously to boot. In the judicial system, the accused have a presumption of innocence. In the media, the accused have a presumption of guilt. They cannot defend themselves. They are tarred and feathered, hung out to dry, losing friends, family and supporters. They lose their jobs, and no one wants to be seen with them publicly.  A lifetime of good deeds with a sterling reputation is erased in an instant, never to be regained and never to be recovered.

That is mob justice, and it is grossly unfair, not to mention an odious violation of Torah law. It is rank lashon hara, which Jewish law obligates us to disbelieve. It serves no one well, and serves no legitimate purpose.

Well, there could be a purpose, a to’elet (a benefit, in the language of Jewish law) that would permit such exposure: if future harm to others will thereby be prevented. I.e., if the accused – say, a teacher – is still in a position to harm children, then there is an interest and a justification in going public, exposing him and his misdeeds, and protecting children. (Was that a realisitic factor in this case? I don’t know, but from the information to date, it certainly doesn’t seem so.) One might then fairly ask: if that is the motivation of the victims, then why didn’t they seek to protect their peers 20, 30 and 40 years ago? Why didn’t they prosecute when they should have?

Pure vengeance is not a legitimate purpose, nor is catharsis a legitimate purpose. One who wants vengeance should confront the accused directly, and one who seeks catharsis should speak to a therapist, not the media. But civilized people do not address grievances by anonymously running to media decades after the event. It is outrageous and shameful conduct, notwithstanding the sympathy one feels for them, whatever happened.

Again, there are often cogent and plausible reasons why victims do not come forward, usually to avoid stigma, publicity, or other personal issues. To me, it is the most vexing aspect of these squalid stories. I reported some incidents to the local police last year – and the local prosecution – both of which investigated but were stymied because the victims refused to cooperate. Will those same victims come forward anonymously in 2040 and castigate their abuser? I would hope not, despite my revulsion toward the accused. NOW is the time.

Victims who choose silence when they could prosecute have a moral obligation to remain silent when they can no longer prosecute. The media grant the charges an aura of credibility that would necessarily be challenged in a courtroom. It is simply uncouth, these days, to even question the reliability of these anonymous complainants to the media. Their allegations are invested with an authority that they may or may not deserve. We have thus created a system that is inherently unjust, pat ourselves on the back for our imagined superiority, and then smirk at the accused – never imagining that some vengeful or disgruntled contemporary of ours might someday do the same thing to us. (Indeed, allegations of sexual abuse of children by one spouse are staples in custody/visitation litigation.)

That is why trial by jury (or judge) is the way civilized societies resolve their legal disputes, and not that the resolutions are always fair either. Guilty people on occasion are acquitted, and honest complainants become even more disenchanted. By the same token, I vividly recall the day when former Secretary of Labor Raymond Donovan stood on the steps of the Bronx County Courthouse after being acquitted, and said “Which office do I go to get my reputation back?” The system is not perfect, but it is the system under which we live – and the demands of Jewish law are even more stringent for the accused and their accusers.

And that is why the heroine of the Jewish people in 2012 is that young Satmar woman who prosecuted her now-convicted abuser, Nechemya Weberman, and withstood all the ignominy heaped upon her by shameless members of that community. I hope, too, that his other alleged victims come forward as well, and testify, too, so the Satmar community should have no doubt about the monster they allowed in their midst and protected at all costs.

Two final points: some of the allegations herein involve behavior that, if not criminal, was at least weird and creepy. But there is a fundamental difference between weird/creepy – and criminal. Criminal is illegal, while weird/creepy is not illegal but might be unbecoming a teacher or administrator. It is best to let the police and prosecution decide which is which. And schools should be intolerant of the criminal, the weird and the creepy.

And some of the alleged victims who reported their abuse to school authorities back when it allegedly happened erred, but understandably so. In accordance with the times, and the way these matters were handled back then, it probably seemed like a reasonable approach. But in retrospect, if the allegations were serious and substantial enough, they should have been brought right to the police, not the school authorities. And certainly the school authorities should have taken them more seriously, if they were credible. But we should take care not to impose our standards of vigilance on an era when people were – sadly – more lackadaisical about these matters.

Again, none of this is intended as an adjudication of the information that has emerged to date. Fairness and justice demand that the accusers have our sympathy and the accused have the presumption of innocence.

That is civilized. The media circus that we indulge as the weapon of choice for delayed prosecutions is nothing less than the modern equivalent of the public lynching of old.

And we should not tolerate that anymore than we should cover-up abuse of any person, especially a child.