How 'bout them Duggars?

[Mayzoo]

The policeman filed some kind of police report that existed after the event for 'In Touch' to read it. I don't know if that statisfied his legal requirements. If he was required to file with another agency and did not, then he was the one who did not fulfill the legal requirements.

I am unclear if a home school teacher is required to follow all laws pertaining to teachers. If so, then his mother was required to report the crime as she was the primary teacher in the children's lives.

 

[Blue Wren]

How old are the victims now? This was about a decade ago, after all. Now that they're older they probably know exactly what happened to them and why it was wrong, even if ol' Jim Bob tries to tell them everything has been settled. Didn't they find out about this thing when one of the girls hid a note and smuggled it to Oprah's crew or whatever? So whoever she was she must have known exactly what had happened. In a few years the victims will be adults and can press charges independently. I guess they could do it now, too, but I figured that the Duggar parents could intervene somehow as long as the victims are legally minors. I'm not quite sure how all that works, though, seeing as how I've never had to press charges against anyone. In this case I figured it was Jim Bob that was controlling the victims more so than Josh, who to me just seems to be ashamed at having ben caught.

In the U.S. is there a separate statute of limitations, for victims? There should be one, I think, to allow for victims, who were minors during the period of eligibility, to press charges, as adults. I know the police, they could not press charges, in 2006, because the statute of limitations had expired. The victims, were all minors still then, so this seems unfair, to me.

 

[HonestTruth]

Victims of child hood sexual predators have been allowed to sue for damages inflicted during their youth. This is why so many church have had to pay millions to these victims.

 

[Blue Wren]

Victims of child hood sexual predators have been allowed to sue for damages inflicted during their youth. This is why so many church have had to pay millions to these victims.

Ah, yes, this is true, that is a good point. It is not possible, in the U.S. for the victims to press criminal charges, as adults for crimes committed against them, as minors? A lawsuit, it is their only possible recourse?

 

[Mayzoo]

Ah, yes, this is true, that is a good point. It is not possible, in the U.S. for the victims to press criminal charges, as adults for crimes committed against them, as minors? A lawsuit, it is their only possible recourse?

So far as I am aware, once the statue of limitations runs out on a criminal charge (3 years in this case) the perpetrator can no longer be tried criminally despite the age of the victim at that time. They can still be tried civilly for punitive damages (money). I do not foresee this happening in this case however.

 

[mkgal1]

So far as I am aware, once the statue of limitations runs out on a criminal charge (3 years in this case) the perpetrator can no longer be tried criminally despite the age of the victim at that time. They can still be tried civilly for punitive damages (money). I do not foresee this happening in this case however.

I agree. I don't think that will ever occur, and that's another big problem with this entire culture. Everyone is saturated in the belief system that includes grace being quickly extended by the victims to their molester. Here is a chart of how the issue is handled---and remember---there is a LOT more that goes along with this belief to create a "perfect storm" of the victim believing it's all "God's will to make her mightier in Him" so she (they) ought to do the right thing and extend grace and forgiveness....quickly.

http://fiddlrts.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-duggars-how-fundamentalisms.html

 

[Hetta]

Hetta - when you have been married for over 30 years to someone who endured and was traumatized by that kind of abuse for years; you can come and tell me how "barbaric" it is. YOur opinion may change.

BTW - it is "murder" or "Shedding of innocent blood" that the bible speaks against; NOT the judicial action of capital punishment.

No I won't. Murder is murder and it's never okay to take the law into your hands and murder a person.

 

[Hetta]

How do you defend attributing specific motives to people when there are hundreds of other possible motives? How can you defend saying that someone didn't report an incident to the police because he wanted to be on a TV show that hadn't been created yet?

I read an article online, which is also filtered through the author. It's unrealistic to think the Duggars knew of the police officer's inappropriate content crimes, though the article mentions it as if that were relevant to the situation. Reporting the case further--if it were legally required-- is on the police officer, even if he were friends with the Duggars.

The information is out there, go look it up.

You wouldn't report a small child who stole a nickel in your own home, would you? There is probably some level at which you would report it. Would you report a first-time drug offense? Was the statute of limitations up when your son confessed to things he did in childhood?

You keep bringing it down to minor offenses. Stealing a nickel =/= touching the breasts and vaginas of little girls.

I couldn't prove what my son did. And where's the evidence? He did admit it when he started applying for jobs in law enforcement. Nobody arrested him. But he was an adult, not a child, and he didn't molest little girls.

In this case, the Duggars did get the police involved, eventually. If it's not legally required to contact the police, and they believe it is best to handle it themselves, what I your basis for an accusation. We don't know if and when they told the family of the other girl. I suspect they did, but I haven't read about it.

I don't know everything about the Duggars at the time, but I don't think they fit into any of the mandatory reporting categories listed. Where does the Bible teach that this crime must be taken to the judges as opposed to being handled by the parents? You haven't show any evidence that the Duggar's were legally required to report. Being subject doesn't mean following laws that don't exist. I Corinthians 6 teaches against taking cases against one another before unbelievers rather than before the saints.

LOL. One of the mandatory reporting categories was "parents". Another was "clergy". So the church failed too.

Of course what happened was maltreatment. I don't know that the Duggars would say they handled it as best as they could. I can hardly imagine what a parent would go through if one of their own kids molested one of their own kids and someone else's kid, and how they would navigate dealing with that.
The link you pointed me to doesn't say the Duggars were required to report unless they fell into some mandatory reporting category that I don't know about.

You don't know what the parents would go through? It astonishes me that the victims are not the major concern for everyone. I even saw where some Christian leader suggested that JD become an advocate for molested kids. What goes through these people's minds? Perhaps murderers could advocate for murder victims and rapists for rape victims. Where's that 'doh' icon when you need it?

 

[Hetta]

How old are the victims now? This was about a decade ago, after all. Now that they're older they probably know exactly what happened to them and why it was wrong, even if ol' Jim Bob tries to tell them everything has been settled. Didn't they find out about this thing when one of the girls hid a note and smuggled it to Oprah's crew or whatever? So whoever she was she must have known exactly what had happened. In a few years the victims will be adults and can press charges independently. I guess they could do it now, too, but I figured that the Duggar parents could intervene somehow as long as the victims are legally minors. I'm not quite sure how all that works, though, seeing as how I've never had to press charges against anyone. In this case I figured it was Jim Bob that was controlling the victims more so than Josh, who to me just seems to be ashamed at having ben caught.

Ah, no. There was a note in a book, but it wasn't written by any of the girls. Oprah's show was informed by someone who knew - again none of the girls was involved.

Go and read the transcript of the interviews. If that's not coaching, I don't know what is.

 

[mkgal1]

No I won't. Murder is murder and it's never okay to take the law into your hands and murder a person.

I agree. Not only that---but part of what a victim feels is their power being stripped away from them.....so by others taking "matters into their hands".....they are (again) dis-empowering the victim.

 

[grandvizier1006]

Ah, no. There was a note in a book, but it wasn't written by any of the girls. Oprah's show was informed by someone who knew - again none of the girls was involved.

Go and read the transcript of the interviews. If that's not coaching, I don't know what is.

Ok, thanks for clarifying. I really think all of this could have been avoided if the parents had not relied so much on Gotherd's rules. They handled it by his booklets (incorrectly, of course), and coached the girls into saying what they wanted.

Still, once those particular victims are adults, even if they're still living with their parents they should be able to legally bring up charges. If they just got married to escape, then divorced if it was arranged (and since all of that courting was like arranged dating, it probably would be) and then they'd finally be independent enough to feel like they could come through with the charges. Maybe someone would have to "enlighten" them? I doubt most people would care enough, though. We don't even know which of the girls are the victims, and I never watched the show so I can't take a guess.

 

[LinkH]

They didn't, but the officer did. That's the argument.

I think we are in agreement that if the officer was required to report the case further, but didn't, he was at fault.

This is about the most inane thing I have ever read. You know full well that there is not a verse that says "thou shalt take thine minor child whom hast molested the maidens before the governing authorities, lest ye die" (Book of Mammon, 199:36).

Your use of verbage there is pretty inane. tpp. I had to read it a few times to understand it. 'Whom' is used as an object like 'him' and 'mine. Combined with the Early Modern English, it's hard to read what you are saying.

It's not as bad of butchering of Elizabethan English as that Geico add, "Madest though look" (You made you look), though.

Anyway, my point is still valid. Those of us who are parents, if we are honest with ourselves, know there are things we wouldn't report. There are things that almost no reasonable parent would report. What parent is going to alert the police if their three-year-old gets out of their carseat? No, you stop the car and secure the child. We don't report very minor thefts.

When it comes to something like this and parents aren't required to report, they do what's best for the family. If reporting means a remote risk that the state could come take your children, then that becomes a factor in your decision. I don't have a huge amount of trust in state child welfare agencies. I'd imagine a homeschool family living a quiverfull lifestyle would have even less.

 

[LinkH]

I agree. Not only that---but part of what a victim feels is their power being stripped away from them.....so by others taking "matters into their hands".....they are (again) dis-empowering the victim.

I don't get what you are saying. What does a perp dying have to do with the victim feeling powerless, unless the victim wants to do the killing like in the Hollywood movies?

 

[LinkH]

They handled it by his booklets (incorrectly, of course), and coached the girls into saying what they wanted.

We don't know if they used Gothard's teaching on molestation. Lots of home school parents pull together materials from different sources. Saying the girls was coached is just opinion, too.

Still, once those particular victims are adults, even if they're still living with their parents they should be able to legally bring up charges. If they just got married to escape, then divorced if it was arranged (and since all of that courting was like arranged dating, it probably would be) and then they'd finally be independent enough to feel like they could come through with the charges.

Maybe you should read up (earlier in the thread) or watch the show a bit before commenting. The statute of limitations expired after three years, so they can't bring up any charges against their brother. You are assuming they want to.

Also, why would you assume that these girls don't have some values about marriage, that they'd marry to get out of the Duggar home and just divorce? I haven't seen that much of the show, but here recently, I've seen scenes of a couple of the girl's dating, engagements, and weddings. They act like little school girls with boyfriends. The 'rules of engagment' for dating are different with side hugs and no hand holding before engagement and no kissing before marriage and such, but the feelings these couples have show through. People in the 1800's had feelings, too, back when they went courting with chaperones and some of these things the Duggars do. And the divorce rates were actually lower, then. So if they date in an old fashioned way, it doesn't mean that they don't have feelings or real relationships.

 

[LinkH]

ImaginaryDay wrote,

But laws DO exist against sexual molestation against children, even if the perpetrator is a minor himself.

That's not the issue. We all know sexually fondling a child in their sleep is illegal. The issue is whether it was illegal for parents in Arkansas in 2002 to not report a case to the police and try to deal with the situation and arrange some kind of counseling on their own without bringing in social workers who could, conceivably, break up the family.

 

[HonestTruth]

Ah, yes, this is true, that is a good point. It is not possible, in the U.S. for the victims to press criminal charges, as adults for crimes committed against them, as minors? A lawsuit, it is their only possible recourse?

Depending on the state, the statute of limitations for criminal liability may vary - but usually these are no more than six years for most crimes. However, exceptions are made for child sexual abuse cases in civil courts. The institutions may be sued for damages arising from those crimes. But the predator who committed them is generally not chargeable under a criminal statute because of the time lapse.

 

[LinkH]

Here is something else that bothers me about this story.

Let's suppose some other kid is falsely accused of molesting his own sisters or something equally gross, but he didn't do it. The names of the minor alleged molestees are protected by the state.

But the accused is not charged with a crime and not convicted due to lack of evidence, since he is innocent.

Later, he becomes famous, runs for office, or whatever. The press start snooping around. They find a police report with his name, his parent's name, and other personal information on it in the public record.

Why does the state make public the names of minors accused of such a stigmatized crime when they aren't found guilty of anything? One didn't have to do such a thing or even be convicted for the press to get the record and drag his name through the dirt.

 

[Dave-W]

"

I agree. Not only that---but part of what a victim feels is their power being stripped away from them.....so by others taking "matters into their hands".....they are (again) dis-empowering the victim.

So, by the LORD taking matters into his own hands and defeating our abuser, - satan - He was "dis-empowering the victims," i.e. US?

He called it redeeming and protecting and so do I.

If anyone (even a family member) was threatening my wife or any of my kids when they were small I would not hesitate to "take matters into my own hands" and use deadly force to stop them.
And that is NOT murder; at least not in the biblical sense.

 

[Avniel]

Huh that's so offensive these jokes are the reasons police think less of black life it has no place in a Christian thread

 

[ImaginaryDay]

One didn't have to do such a thing or even be convicted for the press to get the record and drag his name through the dirt.

You mean like Bill Cosby? He's a wonderful target, but because he's not a 'Duggar' (or anyone like them), it's alright if he gets hung out to dry. Sometimes the double standard of Christians is sickening. But that's for another thread.