In recent weeks I've seen a few articles implying that the activities of the ISKCON Child Protection Office (CPO) have been somehow opposed to or in place of the functions of civic law enforcement and social service authorities. I served as director of the CPO from 1998-2004, and I want to clarify that a major emphasis of the CPO was to strongly recommend that everyone connected with Srila Prabhupada's movement learn and follow local laws and policies regarding reporting suspected child abuse, and to train persons concerned about child protection in ISKCON to cooperate with government authorities. The CPO's endeavors were intended to complement, not supplant, the efforts of State agencies. I fully trust that this has continued to be the case with the CPO.

In a chapter entitled Child Abuse and the Hare Krishnas: History and Response, in The Hare Krishna Movement- The Postcharismatic Fate of a Religious Transplant, I wrote on page 334: "It should be noted that the investigative and adjudicative procedures of the APVC are not a replacement for the functions of state authorities. The APVC merely determines the relationship of an alleged perpetrator with ISKCON. It directs and assists all temples, schools, and projects in learning and following their local laws regarding child abuse and mandated reporting of it."

Several authors, including Sanaka Rsi prabhu (Click Here) and Kapila prabhu (Click Here), effectively address issues related to the need of internal intervention, even in cases where civic authorities do become responsibly involved. Consider for example the situation of someone who was accused of child sexual abuse, and who was acquitted in criminal court due to lack of sufficient evidence at the criteria of beyond a reasonable doubt. Then he applies to be a swim instructor at a devotee youth summer camp. Would the Vaisnava community want him to serve in such a capacity (This is a genuine example from a CPO case file)? And, as described in other articles, the vast majority of cases do not come to the attention of the State. Of course in responding to such delicate situations it is essential that the suspected or accused is treated with honor, respect and commitment to fairness, while also upholding our responsibility to protect children.

I present the above to raise awareness of the complexities involved in real life situations connected with balancing principles such as protection, fairness and due process. "Dial 911. End of story," as suggested by Vrindavana dasa, would be a wonderfully complete solution, if the world operated in such a simple manner. Unfortunately it doesn't. In my service with the CPO I encountered hundreds of diverse situations, requiring the subtle and nuanced considerations on the part of many persons, in order to effectively respond to the circumstances with integrity.

I'm not necessarily advocating that an international central office is the best way to manage the child protection needs of a spiritual society, though I do know that without the central office there would have been, worldwide, many fewer persons and teams trained in child maltreatment prevention and intervention, much less awareness of the issues involved in child protection, and much greater difficulty in accessing important information connected with handling challenging situations that regularly surfaced. "Important information" could mean, for example, checking a centralized database for background checks to determine if rumors about someone who arrived at a temple or project were substantiated, or false.

Regarding ISKCON's efforts at establishing a Central Office of Child Protection, throughout my years with the CPO, also called the APVC (Association for the Protection of Vaisnava Children) the office regularly received commendations and appreciation from social service, mental health and legal professionals, such as this one from Stephen Johnson, a lawyer with several decades of experience in Florida. He commented: "I have been very impressed with the efforts of the APVC on behalf of ISKCON International in dealing with child abuse situations. I reviewed their adjudicatory process, their procedures, their definitional sections and the training involved in becoming judges in that adjudicative process. I find that process to be one which affords due process to the person who is the alleged perpetrator, as well as opportunities for rebuttal, and strikes the necessary balance between fundamental fairness and the search for truth. In this regard, APVC's initiative is a very important one. The APVC shows sensitivity to the victims as well as understanding of the perpetrators and provides for opportunities for those perpetrators to make amends and continue on their spiritual path, while making sure the Vaisnava children are protected."

With regard to case investigations, the CPO was equally interested to find evidence to acquit, as to find evidence to convict. In reference to the specific case discussed in some recent website articles, I appreciate Pandu prabhu's (Click Here; Click Here) handling of substantive issues related to that case, and also Sanaka Rsi's (Click Here) comments on several salient points, including the nature of the involvement of ISKCON leadership in that case. To enhance understanding of substantial issues connected with the processing of that case I refer the reader to the letter from Kirtan Rasa prabhu, including in Pandu's article (Click Here). For further insight into jurisdictional and procedural aspects of that case, at the end of this article I am including excerpts from a letter dated July 18, 2008, that I sent to Dharini prabhu in response to her letter to me dated July 10, 2008.

[[[Excerpts from letter from Dhira Govinda dasa to Dharini, in response to Dharini's letter to Dhira Govinda dasa dated July 10, 2008]]]

David B. Wolf, Ph.D., L.C.S.W.
P.O. Box 1694
Alachua, Florida 32616
Tel: 386-418-2037

July 18, 2008

To: Danielle Beauvais

In 1997 the ISKCON Governing Body Commission (GBC) established the ISKCON Child Protection Task Force. This Task Force consisted of Akandadhi dasa, Anuttama dasa, Badrinarayana dasa, Dharmaraja dasa, Laxmimoni dasi, Manu dasa, Pancaratna dasa, Sesa dasa, and Yasoda dasi. Please note that I was not involved in the formation of this Task Force, and neither was I a member of it. The Task Force wrote the ISKCON Child Protection Task Force Report. In 1998 the GBC accepted the Task Force Report, and it became ISKCON policy. An integral aspect of this report was the establishment of the ISKCON Child Protection Office (CPO). The GBC asked me to establish and direct this office, and I agreed. In April, 1998, we opened the CPO, incorporated as The Association for the Protection of Vaisnava Children (APVC), later renamed The Association for the Protection of Children (APC).

I served as director of the APC from its inception till June, 2004. In my service in that capacity I endeavored to apply and integrate the guidelines of the Task Force Report in addressing the child protection concerns and issues connected with ISKCON. ...

With regard to the case of [[[.......]]], I believe that the procedural soundness of the case, with respect to the guidelines of the Task Force Report, is amply demonstrated in the documentation of the case file. For example, my letter to [[[.......]]], dated Dec. 30th, 2000, clearly delineates and informs him of CPO procedures, and mentions that he has the opportunity to appeal any of the panel members. In that letter I ask if he has any questions regarding case procedures. Concerning panel selection, and the activities of the panel itself, I herein reference a letter I wrote on Aug. 11, 2002, to various ISKCON leaders: "Concerning the panel selection in the case of [[[.......]]], I invite you, or anybody, or any group, to review the processes of that panel selection, and also to review the processes and work of the panel. The APVC endeavored quite a bit to form a panel, as it was difficult to find devotees trained in child protection to serve on the case. When we found trained devotees who were willing to serve on the panel, both parties in the case had opportunity to appeal the selection of the selected panel members. The defense did appeal the selection of a panel member, and the APVC accepted that appeal, and the appealed panel member was replaced. The three panel members who eventually served on the case were all approved by the defense and the plaintiff. I believe that the APVC made special endeavor to ensure that the process of selecting panel members was fair to the defense. If you decide to review the process of that selection, and you determine otherwise, I will be glad to hear the results of your findings...Concerning the work of the panel members in the [[[..........]]] case, I stand behind it. I believe that all three panel members did an excellent job. I believe that they conducted themselves in a fair-minded, balanced, and astute manner. If you examine their processes and deliberations and arrive at a different conclusion, please let me know..."

Please note that, in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Task Force Report, I was not on the panel that determined the validity, or lack of it, of the allegations against [[[.......]]]. I did not serve on that panel, nor did I participate in the interviews with [[[.......]]] or the accuser in this case.

With reference to questions of jurisdiction, with relation to the procedures outlined in the Task Force Report, this, I believe, is definitively answered in my letters to various ISKCON North American leaders, dated February 3rd, 2002, as well as their responses, especially the response of Virabahu dasa dated Feb. 10th, 2002. For me it is not clear how you or anyone could read this correspondence, in the context of section 7.1 of the ISKCON Child Protection Task Force Report, and maintain doubt about the jurisdiction of the case. If after studying this documentation you continue to have questions about this, I invite you to communicate with me about this matter.

Other procedural elements of the case involving [[[.......]]] are included and, I believe, reasonably comprehensively explained, in my letters to Mr. Seth Spellman, dated May 20, 2001, June 22, 2001 and Jan. 22, 2002.

...

Respectfully,

David Wolf

CPO is Flawed but Necessary
by Sanaka Rsi das
Posted June 16, 2009

I agree with Visnugada das's findings ("CPO Mistakes Remain Under The Rug") that the CPO is inadequately equipped for its task and that much needs to be done for its improvement. However, I disagree with just about everything else in his paper.

It is important to be aware of Visnugada prabhu's position and possible bias when reading his presentation. I find his paper to be an oversimplification of an otherwise complex issue and his suggested solutions to be inadequate, impractical and difficult to implement.

His motives are to please Srila Prabhupada and protect devotees from a miscarriage of justice, which is commendable. Instead of requesting a case review, however, he tries to influence the reader towards a conclusion of innocence. He finds faults with the process and ignores what I consider simple facts of the case, which in my opinion shows a lack of objectivity.

A reader of Visnugada's paper could come to the inaccurate conclusion that the CPO and perhaps even the GBC as a whole are and have been biased against accused devotees in child abuse cases.

Dhira Govinda prabhu was the director of the CPO at the time of the first adjudication of one accused devotee, whereas Tamohara prabhu presided at the second. If, as per the statements of Visnugada prabhu, Dhira Govinda prabhu has seemed excessively zealous in prosecution, sadly it seems to me that Tamohara prabhu may have taken the opposite tack; yet Visnugada prabhu seems to regard them as if they were working very similarly. The GBC is made up of individuals with different and often conflicting opinions on many issues; child protection is certainly one of them.

The accused devotee enjoyed a substantial amount of support from several GBC members and senior devotees, many of whom took no trouble to ascertain his guilt or innocence. GBC Sesa prabhu, who happens to be a minister of education, acted as defense attorney in the CPO adjudication. When the CPO judges reached a unanimous verdict, HH Radhanath Swami, regarding the sanctions it imposed as excessive, interceded. Prior to his reduction of the CPO sentence, the accused devotee had, with the complicity of some GBC members, on more than one occasion disregarded the sanctions.

Without going into the merit of the fairness of the sanctions, it is commendable of Radhanath Swami, acting in integrity with his conscience, to have intervened to prevent an injustice. What leaves me puzzled is that to my knowledge he has never taken a similar stance to protect child abuse victims, either in CPO cases where the sanctions against a convicted abuser have been inadequate or where a known abuser posed an ongoing threat to children in the devotee community. His non-involvement in the protection of children was not due to a lack of instances where such scenarios have occurred.

I gained some experience and knowledge of the Child Protection Office, its laws and procedures during a case arbitration. In the adjudication of that case, three GBC members wrote letters of support for the alleged perpetrator. During the review of the case we were met with an unexpected amount of opposition and obstacles from both the GBC and the CPO; some of the decisions of the CPO unfairly favored the position of the accused. In the review of that case we did not have the support of even one GBC member.

If Visnugada das thinks that the implementation of faulty psychological tests requires the review of certain past cases, I am curious to know his opinion on the rebuttal issue. Generally, when accusations are leveled, the CPO passes the testimonies of the alleged victim/s to the alleged perpetrator to provide an opportunity to build a defense; and this is only fair. The CPO, however, has repeatedly denied the alleged victims an opportunity for cross-examination. In our adjudication, our request for access to respond to the defense document was flatly refused.

Only after we found the relevant rule in the CPO manual granting us the right to a rebuttal did we succeed in convincing Tamohara prabhu to reconsider his decision. This was the first time that he granted alleged victims the same rights he had been giving alleged perpetrators. Our rebuttal paper constituted important evidence for the case, and he has since agreed that in all future CPO cases the victims will be allowed to rebut. Given my experience, I find Visnugada prabhu's attempt to convince the reader that somehow the CPO has been biased towards the children to be almost amusing.

Furthermore, since the CPO investigation (which he argues was flawed) found guilt, I believe it is unprofessional, out of place and insensitive to the accuser to express sympathy and publicly declare the defendant innocent before a thorough review has exonerated him. I wonder if Visnugada prabhu has entertained the possibility that devotees found guilty by the system may indeed have been guilty.

In the case of the "humble sannyasi" mentioned by Visnugada prabhu, I suggest that even if the results of the "psychological test" did not indicate psychopathic tendencies, the swami's past actions were very much the acts of a psychopathic deviate who was not convicted because of a faulty test but on the basis of his past actions. He built his defense after viewing testimonies submitted against him, but again the CPO denied his victims the opportunity for a rebuttal. Finally, one of the judges had herself previously been accused of child abuse. She may have been biased and sympathetic in passing her judgment on the swami. I doubt if an objective review of his case would result in a lesser sentence. As in other high-profile cases, he enjoyed the unquestioned support of several GBC members and senior devotees.

The CPO's inability to deliver impartial and dependable justice over the years has failed the victims more than it has failed accused perpetrators. Victims have generally enjoyed less support and have had access to fewer resources than the alleged perpetrators.

Many past CPO cases have been reviewed, and some have even been re-reviewed. If we could establish a truly independent and objective commission to reassess past cases, this body would be faced with a monumental task requiring substantial resources, assuming the victims and the alleged perpetrators would be willing to undergo the stress of a review. It is understandable that the GBCs are reluctant to entertain such a possibility, and I am not sure that such reviews would be practical and even feasible.

A problem with the suggestion to replace the CPO and use civil authorities and court systems to investigate and prosecute child abuse arises in cases where statutory limitations prevent court prosecution. In some U.S. states this time is limited to just one year after the victim's 18th birthday, while child abuse is often not discovered until several years after the incidents. Another problem occurs where a victim is not willing to testify. At Bhaktivedanta Manor a man known to have molested two underage girls — and who had "consensual sex" with a third girl who chose not to press charges — was found innocent due to insufficient evidence. Without CPO intervention, this man would be allowed to visit the Manor and pose an ongoing threat to other children.

Many of the worst crimes perpetrated against children in ISKCON history occurred in our Indian Gurukulas. It would be impractical to attempt to prosecute these criminals through the Indian judicial system. Even where accused criminals are from western countries, the law will often not prosecute for crimes committed outside their jurisdiction.

Even where a pedophile has been convicted in secular courts, without the CPO we would still need to decide what needs to be done after the offender has served the sentence. Who would feel comfortable if a felon convicted for pedophilia were to become an initiating guru after having served his sentence?

I contend that imperfect humans cannot create a perfect justice system. Secular courts, although more established and reliable than the CPO, are far from perfect. The notion of justice itself is to some degree arbitrary; at best it may be possible to create a structure that will please the majority.

The CPO is more flawed than most can imagine, but I do not see shutting it down as a viable solution. I believe that the benefits of its existence outweigh and justify the costs, so long as its members are open to learning from past mistakes. The CPO requires more dedication, transparency, accountability and honesty. It requires the willingness and humility to assess, evaluate and implement constructive criticism; it needs to earn the support and approval of the devotee community. It needs for us to meditate on constructive ways it can be improved rather than shut down. It requires a more responsible involvement of the parents, teachers and former students. The CPO must be entirely and visibly independent.

The current CPO seems to be accountable exclusively to selected GBC members; while such an arrangement may have been functional and even practical, it prevents the CPO from being dependable, trusted and impartial, and in some ways defeats the very purpose for its existence. The CPO needs a director who is independent of the GBC.

Tamohara das, the current director, is also a GBC member, the headmaster of the New Ramana-reti School, a member of the Alachua Temple Council, and a recent appointee as chairman of the North American GBC Committee. The number and immense requirements of these different services makes conflicts of interest inevitable. It is likely that Tamohara prabhu is overworked and is unable to dedicate his undivided and unbiased attention fully to all of these services. At times, this will necessarily affect the quality and efficiency of his performance, causing frustration and stress both for himself and for whoever is in need of his attention. Such conflicting interests undeniably undermine the reliability and competence of the CPO as a functional body of justice that is beyond reproach; it fosters the belief that the GBC is intent on controlling the outcome of some sensitive and/or high-profile cases they deem significant.

Without negating the importance of avoiding the punishment of innocent devotees, I invite Visnugada prabhu to extend his compassion to the victims of any perpetrators who may have benefited from the shortcomings and limitations of the CPO. Campaigning for a review of such cases would also be a worthwhile pursuit; it would create a safer environment for the children in ISKCON, and would doubtless please Srila Prabhupada.



CPO Mistakes Remain Under The Rug
Interview with Vishnugada dasa
Posted June 7, 2009

At the 2009 Mayapur GBC meetings, a resolution proposal was introduced aiming at reviewing and restructuring the functions of the Child Protection Office due to serious errors in adjudication.

Q: I understand you and some other devotees proposed a GBC resolution for the 2009 Mayapura Festival involving the CPO. Could you explain what the resolution was?

A: The proposal had two parts. The first was to suspend the CPO functions of investigating and trying ISKCON child abuse cases for one year. That was to happen only in countries where civil authorities carry out the same functions. The CPO's function of educating devotees and congregation members would continue.

The second part of the proposal was to create a panel of experts to review the policies and procedures of the CPO. The panel was to be independent of the GBC and make recommendations for the Mayapura meeting in 2010. Those recommendations were to be directed at improving the CPO functions of investigating and trying ISKCON child abuse cases. They were also to address how past CPO errors would be handled.

Q: Who was involved in drawing up the proposal?

A: Lakshmi Nrsimha prabhu, Dharini devi, an attorney in private practice, and myself. Sesa prabhu presented the proposal to the GBC.

Q: How did you come to the conclusion that such a proposal was necessary?

A: Lakshmi Nrsimha prabhu asked us to review some files from an old CPO case. When we did, we were alarmed to find a host of glaring mistakes, bad procedures, and conflicts of interest. As a result, we became convinced that the person had been wrongly convicted.

Q: Could you say more about the errors?

A: There were so many. I'll just cite some of the big ones. We found the CPO kept evidence from the defense. We found people whose testimony could have exonerated the accused weren't even interviewed, despite the CPO having been informed. We found evidence that could have exonerated the defendant had been ignored without explanation. We also found the CPO used questionable pseudo-scientific procedures that have no proven validity to gain a conviction. And these were the errors for just this one case.

The CPO trained the "judges" themselves. That's like the prosecution training up the judge and jury. The trial was run without even following the CPO's own rules. Although the CPO was supposed to be functioning free of GBC influence, that just wasn't the case. We believe these things made the whole procedure function like a kangaroo court.

Q: What happened with the proposal?

A: My understanding is the first part of the proposal was dismantled by the GBC Deputies committee even before it was presented to the whole GBC.

Q: Why do you think that happened?

A: My sense is there were a few vocal GBC members with a strong stake in the CPO who didn't want the details of the CPO's mistakes known to the others. It's a little like the recent US government attempts to keep messy information from the public.

I also believe they didn't understand the fact that in the US, as in many other countries, the functions of the CPO are, for the most part, already being carried out by civil authorities. Our position was it was unnecessary and legally unwise for the CPO to try to duplicate those functions.

In fact, in the case above, the civil authorities did investigate at the time of the alleged offense and concluded there was no case to pursue.

Q: What about the second part of the proposal?

A: The GBC was presented with the second part of our proposal and decided in favor of having an independent review body. That review body's responsibility will be to make future CPO procedures and decisions less faulty and biased, which is a good thing. However, it will have no authority to review past CPO mistakes.

Q: So the GBC recognized the need for the CPO to be improved, likely due to past problems, but didn't provide a way to address the errors the CPO has already made?

A: Exactly. If I remember correctly, the words they used to describe the faulty CPO procedures were "irregularities" and "anomalies." It seems as though they wanted to avoid using the word "errors", probably for some legal reason, but it amounts to the same thing. Bad decisions.

Q: What is your position now?

A: I believe it is important for devotees to be informed about how the CPO has made decisions, particularly in the above case. We tried to work through the system and avoided public discussion out of deference for the GBC. We are disappointed our whole proposal wasn't discussed and debated. That way the scope of past and present CPO errors had a chance of being aired, recognized, and understood. As it stands now, that may never take place.

We want to give devotees a chance to see the evidence and make their own decision. We believe any reasonable person who examines the facts of the case will conclude it was a gross miscarriage of justice. We also wonder about the effectiveness of a governing institution when it stands by as the conviction of a devotee arising from such a miscarriage of justice continues to be recognized, even when those errors have been clearly pointed out and documented.

To the full GBC's credit, they made a reasonable decision given the information they actually received.

Q: If someone wanted to get further information, what should they do?

A: They are welcome to read the entire proposal, its background, and history of the CPO Resolution. They can also send questions or comments to VPjustice@hotmail.com.

Laksmi-Nrsimhadeva das, Dharini das and Visnugada das have recently posted several articles regarding the Child Protection Office and the CPO Proposal that they submitted to the GBC for review in 2009. They infer that this proposal was mismanaged. As one of the GBC Deputies who was involved with this proposal, I want to definitively state that this did not happen. Every proposal that is submitted to the GBC for review is examined by the GBC Deputies. The Deputies are 25 senior devotees from all over the world who volunteer their time. The Deputies do not change proposals. They assist proposal writers and GBC sponsors to rework the proposal into something the GBC Body can pass as a resolution, should they choose to do so. A resolution is a formal statement of a decision or expression of opinion. Each proposal, therefore, must represent the GBC mood and intent on any issue. No proposal can be modified without the approval of the writers or the GBC sponsor until it becomes a GBC Resolution. At that time the GBC owns the proposal and can modify it as they like. Following normal protocol, Sesa prabhu, the GBC sponsor of the CPO Proposal, attended several meetings with the Deputy group working with this particular proposal. Sesa prabhu was very active and actually guided the process of amending the proposal. It was felt that the goal of the writers named above was met in the amended version. Resolution 305 was passed mandating the formation of an External Review Panel, the purpose of which is to review CPO policy and procedure.

The procedures followed in Mayapura were completely correct and there was no manipulation or unusual dealings whatsoever. According to Sesa prabhu, he informed Lakshi-Nrsimhadeva of the process when he returned from Mayapura. Sesa prabhu said that he explained that a new proposal was submitted; one designed to achieve the objectives of the original proposal and be passable as a legislative document. I would point out, that elements of the original proposal, those not included in the resolution, were part of the discussion with the GBC Deputies and during plenary GBC meeting discussions.

As well, I am pleased to inform everyone that a very rigorous and dedicated External Review Panel is now active in their service. This team is made up of 4 international devotees. They are professionals in the child protection area and are very senior and upstanding devotees. As part of their review process, they are consulting with lawyers in the field, with religious groups who have previously done their own child protection review processes and with a judge who is an expert in child abuse. As well, a new document, Policy and Operational Guidelines for the Child Protection Office has been prepared by a legal consultant. This document has been submitted to this External Review Panel for review. This document represents a complete overhaul of our ISKCON system for responding and dealing with accusations of child abuse.

So there are very concerted and professionally- based efforts going on at this time. Reports will be available in the next few months.

Tamohara prabhu, the current CPO Director, was very satisfied with GBC Resolution, CPO External Review Panel and is fully supportive of the review process. He feels that combined with the existing efforts to develop new policies and procedures, working with the review team of qualified devotees and outside professionals will result in continued improvements to the CPO Policies and Procedures.

Please see below the Resolution 309 passed in Mayapura in February 2009. GBC Resolution 305: CPO Review Panel.

Whereas the original mission of the Child Protection Office was an important and well thought-out effort, and after ten years of operation the Office has gained additional perspectives on the legal and practical complexities involved;

Whereas the work of the Child Protection Office has far-reaching consequences for the victims, perpetrators, and ISKCON as a whole; Whereas ISKCON values fair processes and procedures; Whereas the Child Protection Office has proposed a review process that will assess the policies and procedures of their office; Whereas executive review of the Child Protection Office is a function of the GBC;

RESOLVED:

That the GBC hereby creates a GBC Review Panel of the CPO comprised of three neutral persons with interest or experience with child protection issues. The members of this panel are to be appointed by the GBC Executive Committee. Upon completion of the current internal review being conducted by the CPO, or in conjunction with it, the Review Panel shall review the revised policies and procedures of the CPO and suggest any amendments helpful in achieving the objectives of the CPO.

The Review Panel will periodically, at the invitation of the GBC Executive Committee, review the CPO's compliance with its own policies and procedures, as well as propose or review additional revisions, and will report its conclusions to the CPO Director and GBC Executive Committee.

The Review Panel shall not represent or advocate for any person or party, get involved in legal issues or formal complaints, or rule on the validity of already issued decisions.

All information shared with the Review Panel remains strictly confidential. After each review, the Review Panel will make a recommendation regarding the length of time until the next review, which should be within three to five years.



Snake Oil, Scapegoats and the Hare Krishnas: The CPO's Use of Bogus Science
by Visnugada dasa, Psy.D.
(Doctorate of Psychology; specialty in psychological assessment), Philadelphia.
Posted June 9, 2009

While completing my doctoral training in psychology, I had an assessment case where a couple had been accused of child abuse and subsequently had a child removed from their care by Child Protective Services. I was to administer a psychological evaluation to both parents in order to shed light on their guilt or innocence. I had no idea what kind of psychological test might be helpful since psychological tests are usually made to measure things like depression or psychotic thinking, not child abuse potential. My supervisors gave me carte blanche to communicate with any expert in the U.S. in order to find an appropriate tool to use. I talked with many experts. The overwhelming conclusion I heard was that there is no such test. In other words, there is no psychological test that is capable of determining if person A abused child B. I was warned to be skeptical of those who say they have devised such a test.

Imagine my surprise when a short time later it came to my attention that the CPO was training its investigators and temple presidents to use the Luscher Color Test to identify child abusers. Essentially, this test asks a person to identify their color preferences from an array of colors. A particular set of colors was said to be characteristic of a child abuser. This test has no accepted validity whatsoever among professionals in the field. Nevertheless, it was being used as evidence by the CPO to allege that certain individuals were child abusers! I argued vehemently against its use. After about a year, the head of the CPO at the time reluctantly agreed to discontinue the use of the test. Nevertheless, another year later, I was present when the CPO head received a telephone call from a devotee in India who had just administered the Luscher Color Test and had “discovered” a child abuser. This ridiculous test falsely identified many devotees as child abusers.

Later I was concerned to discover an ISKCON sannyasi had been required by the CPO to undergo a psychological evaluation at his own expense in the course of the CPO investigation against him. Correspondence forwarded to me from a North American GBC member indicated the contention of the CPO was that the sannyasi was somehow a “demon in the body of a devotee” who took pleasure in harming children. This was to be “proven” through psychological testing. The psychological term for “demon” is “psychopathic deviate”. I spoke to the sannyasi and informed him there was no psychological test that could determine if he were a child abuser. He elected to be humble, go along with the CPO demands, and undergo psychological testing anyway. I advised him that prior to the evaluation, he should at least get a commitment from the CPO that if the results did not show him to be a child abuser, his case would be dropped. If test results have the power to show a person’s guilt, shouldn’t they also have the power to exonerate him? I also recommended he receive the evaluation from a neutral evaluator, since the one chosen by the CPO would likely be biased, having been briefed by the CPO. The sannyasi made these requests but the CPO disregarded them. To his detriment, the sannyasi chose to be cooperative with the CPO, wanting to accept responsibility for his actions, and underwent psychological testing through someone chosen by the CPO.

I was interested in the test results, so the sannyasi sent them to me. The test results showed the sannyasi did not have psychopathic tendencies. If one accepted the CPO’s premise that the test could differentiate between an abuser and non-abuser, the sannyasi should have been exonerated, but the evaluator disregarded the results of the tests! (We can assume that if the results had been otherwise they would have been used as a basis for his conviction). Using information drawn from discussions with prosecution witnesses, the evaluator twisted his findings to conclude the sannyasi did, in fact, have psychopathic tendencies! In reviewing the report it was clear the evaluator did not even take the time to interview witnesses for the defense. He did not have the required qualifications to interpret psychological tests; he was not a psychologist at all. And lastly, the CPO-chosen evaluator turned out to be an ex-colleague and friend of a CPO investigator who had a well-known agenda to convict the sannyasi!

In my profession, a report done in this manner by an evaluator without the required qualifications and with such a conflict of interest would be considered malpractice, plain and simple. Nevertheless, the report was entered uncritically into evidence by the CPO to support a conviction against the sannyasi. Hence, it is another good example of the CPO using a scientific façade to gain a conviction.

In another case, instead of weighing the actual evidence, the judges were directed to use a junk science method, the SCAN-View Questionnaire. This test had no proven track record whatsoever in accurately separating the guilty from the innocent (in test parlance this is called a test’s reliability and validity. See below for a more detailed explanation*). There is a clear and timely example of this test’s resulting in false conclusions about guilt. On the test author’s own website he boldly declares that his test methods prove JonBenét Ramsey’s father is guilty of her murder. However, DNA evidence recently exonerated the father.

Even if someone unwittingly argues there was nothing wrong with the test, there are still problems. The test was not used as it was supposed to be used. If you don’t follow the instructions on how to use the test, the results are, of course, invalid. The test author warned that its accuracy would be suspect if it were used to investigate sex-related crimes. His letter to that effect is contained in the accused devotee’s case file; nonetheless, the CPO chose to use the method in a sex crime investigation. In addition, the test author’s procedure indicates the test is to be administered before someone has been informed of their being a suspect in a crime. After being identified as a suspect, a person’s heightened anxiety about being falsely accused will likely affect his responses. Nevertheless, the test was administered after the devotee was accused. To add insult to injury, the case file shows the CPO director carried on back-and-forth correspondence with the test author about the case prior to the author’s interpretation of the responses, eliminating any façade of impartiality on the part of the test interpreter. That the results of this so-called test were used to obtain a conviction is ludicrous.

The above examples show a disturbing pattern. With the prevailing sentiment in ISKCON against child abuse, it appears the CPO has repeatedly been using pseudoscience to generate evidence and lend a veneer of scientific authority to their procedures in order to gain convictions. Regardless of whether someone is guilty or innocent, a bad system of justice is another embarrassment for ISKCON.

My suggestion to ISKCON is simple. Use the civil authorities and court system to investigate and prosecute child abuse in the United States and in other countries where such systems exist. It is shortsighted and pretentious to think ISKCON has the money, expertise and experience to develop a more effective system. If a person is found guilty in the civil system, the CPO can make additional decisions.

In my professional opinion, the CPO has never properly considered the possibility that devotees they investigated may have been falsely accused. Their understanding of child abuse was misinformed and apparently overly influenced by prevailing public sentiment. This resulted in their having little regard for the accused devotees’ spiritual or material welfare. The CPO has misapplied psychological science and therefore it is likely they have arrived at erroneous conclusions.

Through the use of the methods cited above, I believe the CPO has been responsible for causing an inordinate amount of collateral damage in their attempts to protect children. This has resulted in the serious and unwarranted traumatization of accused devotees and their families, who have been suffering sanctions, shame and vilification for years from a CPO decision guided by pseudoscience and quackery. Enough is enough.

I appeal to the International GBC body to please take the steps necessary to address the problem. I believe there is ample evidence to support overturning the CPO decision in at least one case. In addition, I believe consideration should be given to suspending the investigative and judicial functions of the CPO immediately and until it can be determined if, how and when those functions can be carried out it a judicious manner.

* Reliability. Reliability refers to the ability of a test to yield the same results over time no matter who interprets the test. So, if trained persons A and B interpret a test and their conclusions differ markedly from one another, the test is not reliable. Test reliability is one of the very first ways to see if a test is worth anything. Measures of reliability are not difficult to obtain. All the author of a test has to do is get a number of people to interpret the same test and see if their conclusions match. If they do, the test is reliable. If not, it is not. The author of the test the CPO used to convict has not published any information about its reliability. It is standard practice in the field to publish reliability data on any assessment tools. Why has the author of the test used not done so? Undoubtedly because it is not credible and certainly not recognized. Secular authorities who have reviewed the test have concluded that there is no evidence that it is reliable. To illustrate, suppose you were asked to test the usefulness of a new experimental blood-pressure-measuring device. If every person who used the meter on the same patient at about the same time got a markedly different reading, what would you conclude? You wouldn’t know if the patient had high blood pressure, low blood pressure, or normal blood pressure because the test is not reliable. The same is true of the test used to convict the devotee. Its conclusions are worthless because it has no demonstrated reliability.

* Validity. The validity of a test refers to the test’s ability to accurately measure what it is supposed to measure. Was the method used in this case really able to assess guilt? It is well known that if a test is not reliable, it cannot be valid. In addition, it is standard practice for authors of assessment instruments to publish data about a test’s validity. The test author could have easily published his research. The fact that he did not leads to the conclusion that the test is unscientific. From the point of view of standard principles of assessment, the test results must be disregarded.