babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
One of the Duggars is charged for child molestation
May 21, 2015 - 8:55pm
Josh Duggar is the oldest child in the family that stars in the popular show, “19 Kids and Counting.”he is also the executive director of Tony Perkins' Family Research Council Action – the man who runs policy and handles politics for the anti-gay hate group.
In the wake of a tabloid report alleging that he molested several underage girls while he was a teenager, reality-television star Josh Duggar said Thursday that he “acted inexcusably” and was “deeply sorry” for what he called “my wrongdoing.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/05/21/josh-duggar-apologizes-resigns-from-family-research-council-amid-molestation-allegations/
The WP article manages to miss a number of imporant points - something outlined in the snippets I am reproducing below couresty of the Joe.My.God blog/website:
[all emphasis added by me - bk]
The WP article also neglects to mention that Jim Bob Duggar served in the Arkansas House of Representatives where he was vice chair of the House Corrections and Criminal Law Subcommittee - something that the local police would have been quite aware of and would have likely influenced their responses.
The timeline is also important... the police appear to have been contacted only AFTER the statute of limitations governing Josh's crimes made prosecution impossible... assuming, of course, these are the only incidents he was involved in.
The WP article also manages to gloss over:
Perhaps it is time that Duggar take the advice of a Canadian right winger who, until recently, was a provincial premier... and, instead of attempting to portray the LGBT communities as dangerous villians and pedophiles, he should "look into a mirror".
I made this comment on another thread before I found this one.
According to reports, four of the girls that Josh molested were his sisters. It's not difficult to check their birthdates and if you do you'll find that the youngest of the four couldn't have been more than six at the time (and that's assuming that the girls in question were the four oldest sisters - if not ...).
Just correct my post immediately above - I missed one of the sisters when I was going thru the list. If he was molesting the four oldest sisters the youngest one of them would have been 12 at the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19_Kids_and_Counting
I am really biting my tongue here.
Mike Huckabee says 'no worries,move along' and that's good enough for me...said every right wing Evangelical.
Linked with no comment beyond the observation that Josh may be "okay" under law but there are a number of people that were responsible for hiding things. Are they subject to prosecution? After all, the "Statute of Repose" says that the Statute of Limitations begins running when it's known that a crime has been committed. So when was it known that people were hiding abuse of sexual assault?
As for what Josh is guilty of ...
http://acasa.us/pdfs/Sexual-assault-laws.pdf
Regarding the thread title: so he WAS charged then?
Because everything except the thread title seems to suggest that while he should have been, he wasn't.
He wasn't charged. The father didn't report him until after the statute of limitations had run its course (though who ever thought of a three year statute of limitations for rape should be shot). Apparently the father did report it to his church's elders and they sent Josh off to some sort of "work camp" for lack of a better word but they didn't report it either.
The case was never investigated because when the father reported it to the police the cop in question was a family friend and no action was taken [as an aside, the officer in question is currently serving a 56 year sentence for child porn offenses].
"I don’t believe the citizens of Fayetteville would want males with past child predator convictions that claim they are female to have a legal right to enter private areas that are reserved for women and girls," Duggar warned in the automated call. "I doubt that Fayetteville parents would stand for a law that would endanger their daughters or allow them to be traumatized by a man joining them in their private space. We should never place the preference of an adult over the safety and innocence of a child. Parents, who do you want undressing next to your daughter at the public swimming pool’s private changing area?"
wow..she said this just a few months ago
http://www.advocate.com/politics/marriage-equality/2015/05/01/marriage-table-trans-community-new-target
Point of trivia - Michelle Duggar has an openly gay sister that has been living with her partner for some years.
The thing that floors me is the number of people that are actively trying to defend Josh. And their arguments go beyond "it was just youthful indiscretion".
http://www.westernjournalism.com/a-christian-defense-of-josh-duggar/
http://www.salon.com/2015/05/28/5_demented_evangelical_teachings_that_en...
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/michael-seewald-defends-josh-duggar
But then there are some sensible articles on the topic.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2015/05/anna-duggar-and-the...
As an aside, at her wedding, Anna's father made a statement that until then he (the father) had been Anna's master and now that had been transfered to Josh.
BTW, as expected the Duggars homeshool their children. This is the program they use.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/26/duggars-homeschooling-sex-abuse...
In other words it was the girls' fault, not Josh's.
BTW, I double checked the ages of Josh's sisters and it seems that the oldest one wasn't among his victims. That means my original comment that the youngest sister he molested couldn't have been more than six at the time.
http://crooksandliars.com/2015/05/funny-or-die-mocks-duggars-hypocrisy
A woman from exactly the same fundi group with her experiences and views on the situation
It appears this may in fact end up in court, albeit civil rather than criminal: Josh Duggar faces sexual abuse lawsuit from molestion victim outside Duggar clan.
While I despise everything the Duggars stand for, I don't think Josh Duggar being sued is a good thing. His parents, though - that would be nice to see. Josh was a minor when he abused those girls, but his parents covered things up and allowed him to continue. Ultimately, they're responsible.
Curiously, I think the law makes a special exception for even intelligent human children.
If my dog jumps the fence and destroys your rose garden, I'll be held responsible.
If my child sets fire to your garage, well, "that child is a minor, and kids will be kids".
Not to mention that there are a lot of differences in a civil case than in a criminal one - most notably the threshold of proof. And an exponentially greater sideshow factor. Not so good.
I don't know a damned thing about these people, except I assume they are on TV., and they sure have been cluttering up my facebook feed.
One good thing about this is that, because the stature of limitations with respect to criminal charges has run its course, nobody will be able to invoke the Fifth or otherwise refuse to testify. And that not only applies to the Duggars but it applies to their church elders (who I believe that Jim Bob spoke to) as well as anyone else.
If you check the Arkansas criminal code and look up the definitions of the various degrees of sexual assault it appears that Josh was actually guilty of rape. And by not reporting it his parents and anyone else that knew about it was guilty of criminal endangerment of a child.
Interesting that Jill Dillard (nee Duggar) and her husband Derrick have headed off on a long term mission trip with their son. The timing is convenient since it means that she will not be available to testify about Josh's actions.
In fairness before they got married her husband had been on a mission trip to Nepal and Jill actually went to Nepal with her father to meet him when they started courting. And Jill also said that she wanted to do missionary work and deliver babies in these countries (she's trained as a midwife). So they were clearly going to do a mission trip at some point. It's only the timing that's questionable.
I know we all want to see guilty people punished, but that is actually not a good thing. Those limitations and safeguards are in place for a good reason, and exactly why resorting to civil court for criminal matters poses serious problems.
... not the least of which is a legal culture driven by lawyers who smell money, and no action at all in cases where there is no hope of a big payoff.
And no surprise Harper is pushing that same culture of doing an end run around the law with his "victims rights" agenda.
On this one we're going to have to disagree.
The fact that Josh's parents themselves engaged in criminal behaviour by not reporting his actions (but waited until the Statute of Limitations ran its course) says that they were using those safeguards to do an end run around the law.
They are doing an end run around the law. That's an additional reason I support Jim Bob and Michelle being sued. They knowingly manipulated the law to prevent their kid from suffering consequences and themselves from suffering embarrassment.
What's the "good reason" for a statute of limitations on sexual assault?
The important one I was thinking of was the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, rather than the 50 percent in civil cases.
But although there is no statute of limitations on sexual assault in Canada, the general principle is a good one.
Or maybe we can turn this around. Is it okay to go to any legal lengths to get someone we are sure is guilty? Or are lawsuits when one doesn't have grounds for a criminal prosecution always justified?
(assuming one has deep enough pockets to launch such a civil case)
The burden of proof is higher because the penalty is also typically higher (i.e. loss of liberty vs. loss of some money).
That said, in some respects I do agree that a civil suit shouldn't be nothing more than "the court of appeals" if you lost out in a criminal trial.
But if a criminal trial is impossible -- let's say because the family of the potential defendant took great pains to aid and abet them until a statute of limitations has passed -- then I don't care so badly. If the Duggars had acted responsibly and in good faith and had their son been acquitted in a fair criminal trial then I'd see this differently.
And FWIW, I personally think that an acquittal in criminal court should be an estoppel to a later civil suit based on the same event(s). If someone wasn't guilty in criminal court then it's a bit bizarre that they could be guilty in civil court. I came to this opinion after the OJ Simpson trial (and I even personally think OJ did it!)
Yeah, I do sympathize in theory, as I said, I know we all want to see the bad guys get it. But I still think there should be alarm bells anytime we are willing to make an exception and look the other way just because we are sure someone is guilty. There are plenty of cases in which people have made that assumption and been wrong.
And while it might seem like a small penalty, it isn't such a small thing if one is ruined for life, or harrassed out of a job or to suicide, or badgered into silence. The problem with the wild west of civil suits is that it puts the power in the hands of those who have enough money (or a lawyer who smells money)to drag someone else into court.
Last time I was down in the states I couldn't believe the barrage of radio and billboard ads for civil lawyers. They almost made you wish you could get in a car accident so you could take someone to the cleaners and get rich.
To what is this an exception? Who's "looking the other way"?
The good news is that anyone can have a lawyer who smells money.
A plausible and believable accusation is all that takes. It's not as though if OJ Simpson had also been found not at fault in his civil trial we'd all have no choice but to genuinely agree that he was innocent.
The (plausible, believable) accusation is really what does it, not some tort suit. Look at Bill Cosby. He's fucked because we believe his accusers, not because someone did an end run and sued him.
I think tort law in the US has gotten a bit wacky. But where it seems to me most wacky is in terms of multi-trillion dollar settlements for bruised egos and a small scratch, not in terms of people having a first resort -- not a "last resort", note -- in finding some kind of justice.
I don't disagree with you about most of what (I think) you're saying about tort law as a substitute for criminal law. But in this case it appears the Duggars did everything in their power to leave no other option for their son's victims. What should I be objecting to here? The poor Duggars' valiant attempts to protect their son turning out to be for nothing?
I thought I explained what I was referring to in my first comment:: thinking it is a good thing that an accused person wouldn't have protections of refusal to testify or incriminate one's self, or a statute of limitations.
And I thougth I also made it clear I was speaking in general terms. I'm not sure if that wouldn't apply in this civil case, but I'd say those legal protections are even more important in cases where we think someone has committed the crime, or in fact where they have done so. They aren't just there to protect the innocent. I think it is dangerous to all of us to start thinking it is a good thing for them not to be there just so we can see someone punished.
I don't understand the importance of protecting the not-innocent.