With all due respect you are not understanding me correctly. I have not said that the victim is necessarily lying just because the evidence isn't there. I am saying that certain courses of action REQUIRE more evidence than others. You cannot JUSTIFY making a public declaration of intention to kill others against a man unless your evidence is VERY strong and the threat REAL (direct, verifiable statements, not second hand). Other action might be justifiable in its stead, such as notifying authorities privately and keeping an eye on the man until further evidence or cause for action surfaces.<quoted text>
As adults will all know this. I doubt anybody is trying to make it seem like black or white. You on the other hand are. If I understand correctly, what you are saying is that because there is no hard evidence of the crime then it would be wrong to put him through any uncomfortable situation. Let him just live his life unchanged, to a point...you are also implying that because the evidence isn't strong, that the victim is lying... You are say that it either happened or it didn't.
You also cannot make logical leaps of seriousness without sufficient evidence. Just because a boy got in a fist fight in high school doesn't mean he will go on a violent, murdering rampage later in life and that you must warn everyone he knows. Just because a man steals gum from a store doesn't necessarily mean that he will steal the wallets from people in a crowd, and that you must warn everyone he approaches. Just because a married man with otherwise normal sexual habits touches a teenager over her clothes while she sleeps next to him, while certainly not excusable in any way and being deserving of punishment, does NOT necessarily entail that the man will later kidnap young children and brutally assault them (whether it did or did not happen in the Kendrick case --and I am not convinced that it did--is irrelevant to the principle).
Based on what they actually knew, and based on the fact that the police and CPS WERE in fact notified, the actions of the elders were **justifiable**(not necessarily right or wrong in an absolute sense) in this case, in light of the circumstances. The alternative -- to go around handing out warning notes to everybody, or to publicly announce his sins from the platform, or to post them on the information board -- could have very well been illegal, as others have brought out, and would only be justified in the case of an immediate, critical threat.
In another set of circumstances, the elders might have been justified in taking more serious action, but then logically so to would have been the police, and CPS, and the parent of the Kendrick's stepdaughter or the stepdaughter herself.