tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2035557836022548249.post4951141667099875167..comments2024-01-17T03:54:39.225-05:00Comments on Hieing to Kolob: FLDS Pregnancies or Incendiary Tactics?Bored in Vernalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14016611721544251941noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2035557836022548249.post-70988525011385610462008-05-01T11:33:00.000-04:002008-05-01T11:33:00.000-04:00For what it's worth- I don't think Texas calls it ...For what it's worth- I don't think Texas calls it statutory rape anymore. It's called sexual assault, and the statute of limitations is ten years- if I am understanding all the lawyer posts about it I have read elsewhere.<BR/><BR/>I also believe the community has only been at the ranch since 2004, so there is a HIGH probability that the pregnancy from the 1990s did not happen in Texas and was not illegal at the time and place where it did occur. <BR/>Angie Voss testified that she didn't know if she had tried to ascertain if any of the teenaged boys might have been the fathers- and that, on the face of it, doesn't even make sense. How could she not even know whether she had tried to find out of teenaged boys were involved or not?Headmistress, zookeeperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14071449326819510530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2035557836022548249.post-58994336972798779172008-04-30T16:47:00.000-04:002008-04-30T16:47:00.000-04:00Clark,As serious as it might be in some circumstan...Clark,<BR/><BR/>As serious as it might be in some circumstances, I think it is ridiculous distortion of the language to call any consensual sexual activity "rape".<BR/><BR/>Calling anything a "rape" (or even "sexual assault") that does not involve forcibly molesting someone *against* their will pollutes the meaning of the term. <BR/><BR/>At the very least, you could call it "statutory rape", i.e. so people know that it is not a *real* (i.e. dictionary) rape you are talking about.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2035557836022548249.post-79652360200114518722008-04-30T16:22:00.000-04:002008-04-30T16:22:00.000-04:00C L if you listened to the KSL interview I linked ...C L if you listened to the KSL interview I <A HREF="http://www.millennialstar.org/2008/04/29/harry-reid-hypocrite-on-flds/" REL="nofollow">linked to at M*</A> you'll notice the Utah AG suggested that the Texas AG had nothing to do with this. Yet they are going to have to defend all the civil rights lawsuits that are coming up. Reading between the lines one gets the impression the Texas AG wasn't too happy about many of the actions.<BR/><BR/>I think it's way too early to say this will be a precedence. I think it'll end up being a mess that will prevent this sort of thing in the future.<BR/><BR/>I think it's bad enough that this is why authorities are releasing all this information. They simply look so bad.Clark Goblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03876620613578404474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2035557836022548249.post-76923708636092488232008-04-30T15:37:00.000-04:002008-04-30T15:37:00.000-04:00REPORTS OF ABUSE:I don't want to do another post o...REPORTS OF ABUSE:<BR/>I don't want to do another post on this subject, but the latest reports look like more of the same hype. I have become quite distrustful of the reporting by government agencies. <BR/><BR/>"Investigators have discovered a history of physical injuries, INCLUDING broken bones..."<BR/><BR/>What does this mean? 5 children have had broken bones, and a few have scars, some have ingrown toenails??? <BR/><BR/>"gave NO OTHER DETAILS on the children's injuries, but said 41 children were AFFECTED."<BR/><BR/>Please.Bored in Vernalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14016611721544251941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2035557836022548249.post-25982357557336965472008-04-30T15:23:00.000-04:002008-04-30T15:23:00.000-04:00The civil rights angle is absolutely what has both...The civil rights angle is absolutely what has bothered me about this from the beginning. It would be impossible to remove every child from every community that has some cases of abuse. So we're creating a precedent that <I>a priori</I> can never be applied fairly. And the fact that I've read all over the Internet that since these guys are a cult, anything to stop them is justified scares me even more because what's a "cult" is a subjective judgement based entirely on popular opinion.<BR/><BR/>On a personal note, I was shocked when I read the news stories about the pregnant teens and the hair on a bed in the temple. The reason I was shocked was because my first reaction was "so the authorities give themselves permission to illegally search for all the evidence they could find, and <I>that's</I> the best they could come up with? A few pregnant teenagers and a hair on a bed? Do you mind finding me a town in Texas where a raid <I>wouldn't</I> turn up pregnant teens and a hair on a bed?" It's not evidence of anything, yet the public eats it up.<BR/><BR/>As you've seen in my other posts and comments, I don't sympathize with the FLDS or their teachings in the slightest, but I think it's critical that the Constitution has to apply to everyone. And I agree also that in practical terms this illegal blunder is nothing but counterproductive in terms of stopping what abuses exist in the FLDS community.C. L. Hansonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12698855413639518095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2035557836022548249.post-42665534941138751592008-04-30T13:38:00.000-04:002008-04-30T13:38:00.000-04:00Clark, I agree with you about our obligation to tr...Clark, I agree with you about our obligation to try to deal with problems in inner cities, etc., which is why I don't like using that particular comparison. <BR/><BR/><I>let's let the officials get the facts</I><BR/><BR/>It looks like that is what is happening, like it or not. But doesn't the civil rights issue bother you in view of the precedent it sets?? It seems to me that the way this was done will cause the FLDS to become even <I>more</I> secretive and withdrawn from society in the future.<BR/><BR/>Poor decisions on every hand, with more occurring every day. No phone caller, no underage pregnant girls, mothers ripped from nursing children, sick kids in hospitals. Sounds like the FLDS may have grounds for a huge lawsuit when this comes to a conclusion.Bored in Vernalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14016611721544251941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2035557836022548249.post-27810881463569727282008-04-30T12:35:00.000-04:002008-04-30T12:35:00.000-04:00Ayla, if there were no other contextual informatio...Ayla, if there were no other contextual information you'd be right. But there is other information such as how the community reacts towards dating and past evidence of underage marriage. <BR/><BR/>Mark D, if you look closely I've never defended the judges actions in removing all children and have in fact criticized it. However if one can establish that there is community wide acceptance of rape and support for such rape that leads to a different situation than the parallels many are bringing up.<BR/><BR/>As bad as the sexual situation in many inner cities are it's not quite the same as with the FLDS. For the record I think society does have a duty to do something about the <I>horrible</I> situation in inner cities and in many other low-income communities with high rates of young pregnancies. I think it unfathomable how society doesn't do more.<BR/><BR/>But two wrongs don't make a right. And rapes in inner cities are prosecuted when proof is found.<BR/><BR/>Certainly we don't have all the facts. But let's let the officials get the facts - especially genetic tests - so that both criminal cases as well as custody cases can be done in an informed manner. The history of the FLDS in destroying such records, lying about ages and so forth has contributed to the current situation as much as anything. Had they in the past been more open then I think there would have been <I>prima facie</I> reasons to trust their statements and evidence for age and parentage.Clark Goblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03876620613578404474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2035557836022548249.post-79871394936841746422008-04-30T11:50:00.000-04:002008-04-30T11:50:00.000-04:00So let’s look at these numbers and run a little co...So let’s look at these numbers and run a little comparison. The low end of the reports say there are 3 teenage mothers out of 139 women total, the high end of the report claims 31 teenage mothers out of 139 women. So anywhere from 2 % to 22% of the women seized by authorities at the Yearning for Zion FLDS community were teenage mothers.<BR/><BR/>According to Victor C Strasburger, MD University of New Mexico, about one million teens on average becomes pregnant every year in the US. About one third of these pregnancies end in abortion, one third in miscarriage and one third are carried to term. More than half of these mothers are 17 years or younger when they get pregnant for the first time. Approximately 40% of young women become pregnant by the age of 20 and the US has double the adolescent pregnancy and birth rates of any other industrialized nation (Strasburger).<BR/><BR/>Considering that 3 to 31 teen mothers were found out of supposedly 53 teenage girls taken captive, we can clearly see that the number of pregnant girls in the FLDS community is not that out of step with the US population in general. 40% of US women become pregnant by the age of 20 and within the FLDS teenage women we find that anywhere from about 6% to 56% of teenagers were pregnant, mothers or both at the time of the raid (also bare in mind that 1/3 of all US teen pregnancies ends in abortion and the FLDS community does not believe in abortion thus resulting in a higher number of teenage girls who have carried their babies to term in comparison to the US average).Aylahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05651695936428951194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2035557836022548249.post-17648622768369264652008-04-30T11:49:00.000-04:002008-04-30T11:49:00.000-04:00I really don't like calling this rape. But I can'...I really don't like calling this rape. <BR/><BR/>But I can't dispute what Mark said: "The prosecutors have an obligation to enforce the laws, no matter how stupid. The FLDS have an obligation to follow them." <BR/><BR/>The biggest problem comes when, in their attempt to enforce the law, authorities disregard the law themselves, trampling civil rights and causing harm to those who are not guilty. <BR/><BR/>We have an obligation to point this out and to protest the gross miscarriage of justice, lest it set a dangerous precedent that could later harm other citizens with non-mainstream or unpopular views.Bored in Vernalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14016611721544251941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2035557836022548249.post-46077742082833841432008-04-30T01:57:00.000-04:002008-04-30T01:57:00.000-04:00Clark,In this case, there is one unsubstantiated a...Clark,<BR/><BR/>In this case, there is one unsubstantiated allegation that <I>one</I> 21 year old had a child at age thirteen, some <I>eight</I> years ago. So if they can find the guy, prosecute him. That doesn't mean there is any imminent "danger" to anyone else, especially anyone not a female between the ages of thirteen and sixteen.<BR/><BR/>Essentially what Texas has done here is to try to destroy a nonconformist religious community <I>en toto</I> on the basis of what appear to be occasional violations of the law by some of its members. No individualized evidence, no probable cause, just snatch and grab.<BR/><BR/>Civilized governments actually prosecute offenders they can prove violated the laws beyond a reasonable doubt, not try to exterminate whole communities for the sins of a few.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2035557836022548249.post-50101723865057993162008-04-29T23:11:00.000-04:002008-04-29T23:11:00.000-04:00To add, you're never going to convince me that old...To add, you're never going to convince me that older men marrying young girls (13 & 14) is merely cultural imperialism. I'm willing to excuse it in cultures that don't know better. But that says nothing about whether it is good or whether it ought be permitted in our community.<BR/><BR/>Mark D, lots of things are subjective. The fact there is a grey area where people may disagree says nothing about whether there is an area most are agreed upon. <BR/><BR/>To draw an analogy it may be impossible to define pornography. That doesn't mean that pornography doesn't exist.<BR/><BR/>I'd say it's pretty unarguable that rape is one of those areas.Clark Goblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03876620613578404474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2035557836022548249.post-62180653768430149962008-04-29T20:15:00.000-04:002008-04-29T20:15:00.000-04:00Clark,Why should we bother prosecuting criminals a...Clark,<BR/><BR/>Why should we bother prosecuting criminals anymore when instead we could just have CPS take away the children of all the suspects?<BR/><BR/>The whole idea of a hazardous environment for children is enormously subjective. It is what turns CPS into an agent of cultural imperialism - judging the religion, culture, practices of anyone out of favor with a jaundiced eye - even when they are perfectly legal.<BR/><BR/>In this country we slaughter hundreds of thousands of unborn children every year and all everyone can think about is a few unfortunate girls who got married a few months too early. Killing really little kids it politically correct, marrying someone a little too early is nearly a capital offense. Talk about hypocrisy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2035557836022548249.post-33603420168003283882008-04-29T19:59:00.000-04:002008-04-29T19:59:00.000-04:00I believe Texas changed the law to 17. So yes, if...I believe Texas changed the law to 17. So yes, if someone is being married to an older man and they are under 17 I think that is more than deserving of putting the guy away. <BR/><BR/>The fact in the past it wasn't like that is irrelevant. I think it a disgrace that Texas only changed this for the FLDS. (And that may in itself cause legal questions) But it seems entirely appropriate to have made the change. I'd say the same if it was a 15 year old baptist marrying a 30 year old.<BR/><BR/>Failure to report isn't a crime but contributing to the environment is reason to deal with CPS. I'm not saying these women ought be put in jail for not reporting. I am saying that their acts contribute to a dangerous environment for children.Clark Goblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03876620613578404474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2035557836022548249.post-31629504633347177712008-04-29T18:48:00.000-04:002008-04-29T18:48:00.000-04:00Clark,You are painting with a rather broad brush. ...Clark,<BR/><BR/>You are painting with a rather broad brush. Failure to report does not make one an accessory to a crime. <BR/><BR/>In addition, while underage marriages are regarded as "abuse" under the law, in historical terms there is no reason to regard them as such. No malum se here. Several months ago, one could get legally married in Texas at 14. Now somebody jumping the gun by a few months is reason to put them away for the rest of their life?<BR/><BR/>Laws like this are nothing more than cultural imperialism. Custom enforced at the point of a gun.<BR/><BR/>The prosecutors have an obligation to enforce the laws, no matter how stupid. The FLDS have an obligation to follow them. However, there is little or no evidence that any crimes have been committed here, and what few probably have been committed are strictly technical in nature.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2035557836022548249.post-11717934673347892252008-04-29T15:29:00.000-04:002008-04-29T15:29:00.000-04:00I don't think I'm conflating the two.I think the s...I don't think I'm conflating the two.<BR/><BR/>I think the state is saying, "hey, there is a systematic condition of abuse at the compound and all the women knew of it." They just need to establish <I>prima facie</I> reasoning for this. <BR/><BR/>Now as you know I <I>don't</I> think that would excuse all the judges decisions. But I do think it would lead to many people thinking that at least children from 10 - 16 might be in immediate danger.<BR/><BR/>If there was someone who was having sex at 13 and there is circumstantial evidence <I>at this point</I> to believe it was an adult then that seems pretty compelling evidence. If they can find many women who were 13 - 15 at the time of 'marriage' and can establish that the community would know of it (which seems reasonable given the size of the community) then that's pretty compelling evidence for systematic abuse and all the adults being accessories.<BR/><BR/>It's not sufficient for criminal charges but is more than sufficient for CPS actions as I see it. After all if everyone in the community knows it is going on and is contributing to it then that's pretty compelling reasons to see children as in immediate risk.<BR/><BR/>Now what I think then has to follow is the ability of parental lawyers, children lawyers, and state lawyers to argue the case on an individual basis. And that hasn't happened which is horrible in my view. But I think that just with the evidence announced there's quite the case for CPS.<BR/><BR/>You are right though that some of this evidence is coming out to justify the Texas actions. But it seems like finding out a girl was getting married at 13 in that community is pretty good PR. From the PR front it's pretty hard to argue with that. Trying to say it <I>might</I> have been with a 16 year old doesn't excuse it. Since whomever allowed it to occur (presumably everyone in the community) are themselves party to rape. 13 is so extreme an age I can't see anyone excusing that.Clark Goblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03876620613578404474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2035557836022548249.post-19056785969548012292008-04-29T14:55:00.000-04:002008-04-29T14:55:00.000-04:00Clark,That prior annonymous was me; I forgot to pu...Clark,<BR/>That prior annonymous was me; I forgot to put a name.<BR/><BR/>I am conflating criminal and family services, but you are, too. A pregnant 13-year-old may well be prima facie evidence of rape, but a 21-year-old with an 8-year-old child is not, unless (again, to the best of my knowledge) she decides to press charges. Maybe the fact that she got pregnant by a 30-year-old adds credence to an argument that the now-38-year-old raped another 13-year-old who is pregnant.<BR/><BR/>I agree that those who raped little girls should be prosecuted (using the broadest sense of "rape" that can reasonably be used). However, the fact that a girl in the community was impregnated 8 years ago when she was 13 isn't evidence of anything--the man who impregnated her may have been 15 at the time, or 50. He may or may not be in the community anymore. He may have been an outsider. So while perhaps it's enough to raise eyebrows, and even open an investigation (maybe) it certainly isn't enough to open a broad investigation, take children away, etc. (and I realize that you agree with this).<BR/><BR/>That Texas is trying to use a minor's pregnancy from 8 years ago to justify their investigation suggests that they've got some really bad PR people or they really don't have much to work with; I wouldn't necessarily expect them to put their best evidence forward, but if they're inflating the numbers the way BiV's information (and their own evidence) suggests, they're not doing super well.<BR/><BR/>Sam B.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2035557836022548249.post-7301006831675515912008-04-29T14:32:00.000-04:002008-04-29T14:32:00.000-04:00To add, the genetic testing which will determine w...To add, the genetic testing which will determine who is the father and mother of each child (since parents and children appear to be unwilling to say and those who do aren't necessarily trustworthy) can then lead to final decisions about both criminal charges and how children ought be treated.<BR/><BR/>I'm pretty critical of the judge removing all the children. However I think the basic investigation is a good thing. Those guilty of rape ought be in prision.Clark Goblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03876620613578404474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2035557836022548249.post-88529451015505007902008-04-29T14:30:00.000-04:002008-04-29T14:30:00.000-04:00I'd say that in this context especially given othe...I'd say that in this context especially given other arrests within the FLDS community and informers on the FLDS that a pregnant 13 year old is <I>prima facie</I> evidence of rape. Now it's not enough to prosecute but it's more than enough to conduct the investigation and get search warrants and so forth.<BR/><BR/>Which is all irrelevant since that's already going on.<BR/><BR/>For the other issue it seems to conflate two issues. One, the criminal charges against the husband who would be guilty of rape. At best your point is that the case can't be tried in Texas but surely that's largely irrelevant. The police can collect the evidence and let the attorney general of some other state prosecute. (Say Mark Shurtleff if the rape took place in Utah) <BR/><BR/>However the main issue isn't criminal charges but rather family services and whether children should be around such a man. <BR/><BR/>So let's keep those issues separate from the criminal charges. I suspect it'll be a few months before criminal charges are filed. (As I think it almost inevitable that they will be) Evidence has to be collected first. That's a completely different issue from whether children should be removed from the home and perhaps a restraining order put up for the father.Clark Goblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03876620613578404474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2035557836022548249.post-36381067125259122072008-04-29T13:31:00.000-04:002008-04-29T13:31:00.000-04:00Clark,While the statute of limitations would vary ...Clark,<BR/>While the statute of limitations would vary from state to state, you're probably right that rape and sexual abuse statutes tend to run long.<BR/><BR/>That said, there are a couple problems with Texas citing someone who got pregnant 8 years ago when she was 13. First, unless it happened in Texas, Texas can't prosecute it. If the state in which it happened (presumably Utah or Arizona) wanted to prosecute, Texas could hand them over.<BR/><BR/>Also, although it suggests statutory rape, underage pregnancy isn't prima facie evidence of it. This isn't my area of law, but, IIRC, most states say that under a certain age (11 or 12, maybe, depending on the state), any sexual contact is statutory rape. But once you hit a certain threshold, consensual sex with someone, say, 3 years older than you wouldn't be statutory rape, even though with someone 10 years older it would be (as far as I know, the specific ages differ for each state). So it is possible that, in some states, a 13- or 14-year-old who was pregnant by her 15-year-old boyfriend wouldn't be the victim of statutory rape. So it suggests it happened, but isn't absolute evidence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2035557836022548249.post-83733957477546122232008-04-29T13:03:00.000-04:002008-04-29T13:03:00.000-04:00Realistically though, why would it matter if someo...Realistically though, why would it matter if someone got pregnant at 13 over 8 years ago? I believe the statute of limitations on rape is typically something like 20 years. If there are such cases there then that justifies most of what Texas is doing even if no the judge's excessive orders for taking the children away from everyone <I>regardless of abuse</I>. <BR/><BR/>But it seems to me that even if the numbers are 20 that is pretty systematic abuse.<BR/><BR/>Is anyone even denying that the FLDS marry off young women which is considered rape?Clark Goblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03876620613578404474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2035557836022548249.post-26301488283003736432008-04-29T11:47:00.000-04:002008-04-29T11:47:00.000-04:00BiV ~ Reading your post this morning helped me to ...BiV ~ Reading your post this morning helped me to not feel so alone in my perceptions. Thank you.Kalolahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04489121984901640634noreply@blogger.com