Milkweed said:Different issue. Duggarts were not obliged to report but they did have the kid talked to in an apparent 'scared straight' fashion.
The cop, however was required to report.
Milkweed said:Different issue. Duggarts were not obliged to report but they did have the kid talked to in an apparent 'scared straight' fashion.
You have been doing it throughout this thread.Not mocking sexual assault at all, only your analysis and interpretation of it.
Please, seek help.
Dude, the pay is not that much.You claim its your job. Its about your income.
That isn't why the judge had the police report destroyed. And I have read the police report and it was very well redacted.They [in touch mag] published the full contents of the police report, which were not redacted sufficiently to protect the identities of the victims, in spite of a judgement by Judge Stacey Zimmerman on May 21, 2015, which ordered for all copies of the police report to be destroyed.
The LAW says not redacted sufficiently. But you dont agree with the judge do you.
What are you on about?And we listen to prosecutors saying "crack is different than cocaine".
And we listen to prosecutors saying "not enough evidence to charge officer whatever with a crime"
And we then discuss how wrong we think this is.
What emerging sexuality was he dealing with that saw him sexually molest little girls?Your wrong. Josh was just a kid with limited resources in dealing with his emerging sexuality.
Firstly, their name is Duggars. At the very least, get their name right."Now that the data has shown most of those assumptions were wrong, it's difficult to undo those messages that people in the advocacy and treatment fields were putting out a generation ago."...
The Duggarts were right in keeping DHS/Police out of their family. Oh Wait. They did go to a cop right after Josh got back from 'treatment'. Did they know he had child porn on his computer? Nope. No one did.
What a shame your own posts prove you wrong.More lies.
It is never in the sex offender's interest to be labeled as a sex offender. The reason they are labeled as sex offenders is to make sure they reduce the risk or chance that they might re-offend.It would not be in the childs best interest, nor the families best interest to have him labeled a sex offender. Potentially for the rest of his life. Stop wondering about why so many do not seek help from the 'professionals'; the answer is directly in your extremism.
Nope, just your take on the relative nature of abuse in general, which in itself makes a mockery of the subject.You have been doing it throughout this thread.
I am 100% certain that I am not the only person who has noticed how you mock the subject and victims. For example:Nope, just your take on the relative nature of abuse in general, which in itself makes a mockery of the subject.
A virtual rape tutorial.
What if the pen had slipped and penetrated his nostril?!!!
As for the judge, she may have overstepped her authority in ordering the destruction of the report, because Josh was an adult at the time of the police investigation. I do suspect this case is going to get uglier still.
And Josh was 14 and 15 years of age when he molested. Hardly a kid. Unless you are trying to say that kids that age normally molest little kids, in which case, please support that assertion.
Bells said:And that’s just scratching the surface. The Duggars built their brand on a slavish dedication to ideals of modesty and purity, keeping their children away from Unwholesome Influences, even to the point of shouting “Nike!” when the family was out for a walk in the presence of a woman who was immodestly attired, in order to get them to stare at their shoes. Women must be “modest” and “godly” and pure to attract a godly man. This is where their value lies. Chaperones! Courtship! Side-hugs only! Even hand-holding is off the table.
Firstly, their name is Duggars. At the very least, get their name right.
Secondly, I provided a mountain of evidence and links earlier on in this thread about child sexual offenders and how they should be dealt with. All of which directly contradict that one sentence you seem to rely on to defend child sexual molestation.
Thirdly, the police officer they took him to speak to was a friend of his father's, who has said that they lied to him about how many children and times Josh had molested and had they been truthful, he would have reported him as he was legally required to do so being a mandated reporter.
It is never in the sex offender's interest to be labeled as a sex offender. The reason they are labeled as sex offenders is to make sure they reduce the risk or chance that they might re-offend.
The reason child sex molesters are labeled as sex offenders is to protect the children they may come into contact with.
That is why the law exists and is what it is. It is for the protection of the most vulnerable in society.
What? You thought labeling a child sex offender as a "sex offender" is for the offender's benefit?
The organisation is not a treatment center. It was a religious center. In short, Josh Duggar received no treatment for what he did.
That you can’t’ or refuse to see the objective intrusive similarity between what Josh actually did and what was done in the video proves my point. You’re as ideologically constrained from objectivity as you claim the Duggars are. Sadly it's your behavior that’s the butt of this joke.I get it, you don't think the sexual molestation of children is a serious issue and to you, you do think it is all a huge joke. You minimised the molestation, then you normalised it.
I never said you were alone in your affliction.I am 100% certain that I am not the only person who has noticed how you mock the subject and victims.
Milkweed said:And that is EXACTLY why most people dont report their kids.
You dont think Josh's sexual development was a bit delayed by his lack of social contact and rigid family structure?
No law was ever applied. I'd suggest you look up the definition of the Statute of Limitations.Doesnt matter. It was an investigation into what happened when he WAS a minor. The laws are applied at the time they occurred.
He was one year from being allowed to drive a car.A kid. A minor. Unable to vote. Unable to be licensed to drive a car. Unable to join the army. Unable to quit school.
Of course his development was affected by his upbringing. The family obsessed about sex and no sexual touching or any touch that could be construed as sexual touching within the family itself. The whole culture was about girls remaining pure and obedient to the males in their lives and the responsibility for this was placed solely on the girls. The children were educated by lesson plans designed by a sex offender, who places the blame for men offending squarely on the girls.You dont think Josh's sexual development was a bit delayed by his lack of social contact and rigid family structure?
1) Now this is just pathological trolling by you.firstly: ok spelling nazi. I dont follow the duggarts. dont have cable and wouldnt watch that type of show if I did.
Secondly, no you provided a bunch of links to their far flung xian teachings.
thirdly, Since when do YOU put much credibility in a convict? A guy behind bars who will say anything to show hes changed... LOLOLOL I can answer that. When its convenient for your extremism.
You can't even understand the context of this discussion, get their name right and you keep getting things wrong and then saying things like "doesn't matter" when you are caught out.Hypocrite.
And I quote:
What a shame your own posts prove you wrong.
Firstly, what are you quoting from?And that is EXACTLY why most people dont report their kids. And EXACTLY why:
..."I don't condone this behavior, but I spoke to so many families that did the 'right thing' and the reaction was so excessive and Draconian that it destroyed the lives of their children," said Horowitz, author of the new book "Protecting Our Kids: How Sex Offender Laws Are Failing."
Horowitz said that juvenile offenders are the most treatable group of sex abusers, but law enforcement is more focused on punishment, including criminal prosecution with possible jail terms and lifetime listing on a sex-offender registry.
She said Justice Department data shows that one-third of sex offenses involving children also involve underage perpetrators. The most common age, she said, is 14 — the age Josh Duggar was....
All the actual literature on the subject disagrees with you. Even what you quoted disagrees with you.I dont think Josh is a sex offender. I think Josh engaged in mild petting behavior that was impacted by his family lifestyle circumstance. The parents came to the conclusion they needed outside help and sent Josh away (regardless of your opinion of the help they chose). On his return they brought in a family friend with insight into the reality of continued behaviors and what that can lead to.
How would you know if he had?And 13 years later Josh has not (to this date) been accused of anything inappropriate. So apparently, he Didnt Need Treatment (as defined by your insistence).
LOLHow many of those people, do you think, enlist the police in such a manner that requires an officer to break the law?
Bells said:The Duggars built their brand on a slavish dedication to ideals of modesty and purity, keeping their children away from Unwholesome Influences, even to the point of shouting “Nike!” when the family was out for a walk in the presence of a woman who was immodestly attired, in order to get them to stare at their shoes. Women must be “modest” and “godly” and pure to attract a godly man. This is where their value lies. Chaperones! Courtship! Side-hugs only! Even hand-holding is off the table.
milkweed said:You dont think Josh's sexual development was a bit delayed by his lack of social contact and rigid family structure?
Tiassa said:Josh's sexual development was a bit shaped by that rigid family structure.
That second point is significant in the context that issues of sex and sexuality have always been dear to the ownership culture obsession; this is what it's for.
So, yes, the molester's development was affected by his upbringing. Which, in this case, is part of the problem. Ownership and rape cultures have their hooks in many American families. And that's why so many people are reacting poorly, and saying stupid things like, what was that one? Nothing wrong with sibling molestation?
Why does there have to be any molestation that isn't wrong? Impropriety is kind of the nature of molestation.
They trained him to believe that women were subservient to him and that he was to be obeyed as a male. That it was up to girls to not be sexually molested or abused. That 'sins of the flesh' is the girl's or woman's fault for tempting the man.Shaped and Delayed. Fine.
But it doesnt appear the duggar parents were training Josh to molest his sisters.
No law was ever applied. I'd suggest you look up the definition of the Statute of Limitations.
The report also redacted Josh's name as well.
He was one year from being allowed to drive a car.
Yippie!! And any parent wondering if they should contact the authorities on this issue will walk away convinced its in the best interest of the family!More importantly, Arkansas can and does transfer juveniles (ie minors) aged 14 and up to the adult criminal justice system for crimes against other persons. So even though he was a minor, he could have been charged and tried as an adult for the crimes of sexual molestation and sexual abuse of children.
The family obsessed about sex and no sexual touching or any touch that could be construed as sexual touching within the family itself.
In the context of how Josh was brought up, to be in a position of dominance over his sisters, his crimes become even more heinous, because he used that position of authority as the older brother, to abuse and molest his younger sisters, even a much younger sister.
You brought up the spelling in an attempt to marginalize me. Typical troll behavior.1) Now this is just pathological trolling by you.
2) Those Christian teachings happen to be the education plans employed by the Duggars in homeschooling their children. Hence why they endorse them and tell one and all this is what they are using.
Bells said:Secondly, I provided a mountain of evidence and links earlier on in this thread about child sexual offenders and how they should be dealt with. All of which directly contradict that one sentence you seem to rely on to defend child sexual molestation.
3) The Duggar's were very happy to consider that officer as an excuse for telling the police about what Josh did. Consider, this is a family who lied to police, refused to allow Josh to be questioned and instead hid him, lied to their Church and community, lied about getting their children treatment and professional counseling (counselors are mandated reporters, and no report was filed).. The Duggar's are hardly trustworthy individuals themselves.
Thirdly, the police officer they took him to speak to was a friend of his father's, who has said that they lied to him about how many children and times Josh had molested and had they been truthful, he would have reported him as he was legally required to do so being a mandated reporter.
Reality. What I provided is the truth.Deflection. A Judge said it didnt protect the identities of the minors involved. You provide tabloid yellow journalism to dispute the finding. And you do not dispute this was a minor.
I'm sorry, is reality and the truth painful for you to swallow?Yippie!! And any parent wondering if they should contact the authorities on this issue will walk away convinced its in the best interest of the family!
This whole Fiasco is fodder for those looking for a reason to avoid telling anyone. Nice Job!
Why is it that when people have nothing intelligent to say, they resort to "LOL"?And you're different?? LOL....
Because he was sent away.Then Why Did He Stop?? Hes still a fucked up xian following these teachings. Hyperbole.
I brought it up to show you just how little you actually understand about this case and the context in which this abuse occurred. You can't even get their name correctly and even after you are corrected, you still keep doing it, which means it is deliberate and which means it is trolling by you.You brought up the spelling in an attempt to marginalize me. Typical troll behavior.
You really haven't been reading this thread from the start, have you? I provided links and explained all of this on page one and two of this thread.Except that not what you said.
Had you read those links, you would have found what is recommended..And I went back to your mountains of evidence ... it wasnt. Your mountains of evidence was on church teachings.
He said they lied to him about how many children Josh had molested.The Duggars didnt know he was viewing child porn. You do, but still you invoke his words to attempt to make a point against the Duggars. And I quote:
And I already answered this question.So I will repeat the QUESTION.
Since when do YOU put much credibility in a convict? A guy behind bars who will say anything to show hes changed... LOLOLOL I can answer that. When its convenient for your extremism.
A police officer who lied for them and possibly about them. We will never know if he is being truthful about being lied to.That was a cop they knew and trusted via their car business dealing with him. I would refuse to let my kid talk to the cops (in general) too. For any investigation they were doing.
Arkansas has exemptions on who can legally call themselves a counselor and not be licensed by the state.
II. EXEMPTIONS
Section 2.1
CLERGY
(a) Clergy appointed and/or endorsed by their local congregation/church, synagogue, denominational institution or agency to practice pastoral counseling as parts of their responsibilities or duties of their ministry assignments are exempt from licensure requirements. The assignment must be authorized and/or endorsed by their local congregation/church, synagogue, denominational institution or agency.
http://abec.arkansas.gov/ContinuingEducation/Documents/RulesEffectiveNov7_2011.pdf
Its not me being dishonest. It was totally about Josh's emerging sexuality. This whole episode in SciForums has been wrought with people who have an obvious and unrelenting bias against fundy xian beliefs and justify any slanders made with "its all about the children". And its not. Its political and religious intolerance without a care in the world about the impact this has on 18 other people (parents and Josh excluded) to present ill-founded arguments about Justice and the Law. The Duggar's are people who's religion and politics (that I dont agree with) going through a hard process, taking steps that align perfectly well with the standard steps most families take (in regards to discovery of touching behaviors); apparently resulting in the desired outcome (behavior changed) and avoiding a criminal record.You were crowing that he was a minor and I provided you with information that clearly points that 14 year olds can be tried as adults in some cases. For you to try to twist it to being about something else shows your dishonesty. Just as you were dishonest enough to try to make this about his sexuality earlier.
Clergy are mandated reporters in Arkansas. So are counselors, and the parents advised they took their daughters to professional accredited counselors.
Oh yes, because a clergyman is so certain to be "pure and good"... if that were true, why has a special Tribunal been created for the specific purpose of investigating negligence among bishops in preventing priests from sexually abusing children?
Sounds like an attempted appeal to authority (religious authority, but authority none the less)
Are you suggesting that his "emerging" heterosexuality is what made him molest?Its not me being dishonest. It was totally about Josh's emerging sexuality.
You can't even bring yourself to write out the term "Christian", you can't get their name correctly.This whole episode in SciForums has been wrought with people who have an obvious and unrelenting bias against fundy xian beliefs and justify any slanders made with "its all about the children".
Yes, poor parents who hid and protected their child molester son and then went on to falsely label other people as child molesters for being LGBT.And its not. Its political and religious intolerance without a care in the world about the impact this has on 18 other people (parents and Josh excluded) to present ill-founded arguments about Justice and the Law.
Any family who harbors and protects a child molester who is actively molesting children is endangering children and breaking the law. Hence why if the Statute of Limitations had not been in place, the parents could have found themselves going to jail for lying to law enforcement and hindering an investigation into the molestation of children, including their own children.The Duggar's are people who's religion and politics (that I dont agree with) going through a hard process, taking steps that align perfectly well with the standard steps most families take (in regards to discovery of touching behaviors); apparently resulting in the desired outcome (behavior changed) and avoiding a criminal record.
I take it you didn't read it?
They were mandated reporters in at least 2003. And since this was not a confidential confession from Josh, any exemptions do not apply.They [clergy] were not mandatory reporters in 2006. Hard to say what the mandatory reporting requirements were in 2003 in Arkansas. Fair chance of it being less encompassing. So while you bloviate about 'the law' it appears your not as familiar with it as you think.
Not the same. Josh did not go and confess to his priest. And such privilege only exists for "pastoral communications". Had you read what you linked, this would have been clear.arkansas
Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-518(b)(1) (LexisNexis through 2006 Reg. Sess.)
No privilege shall prevent anyone, except between a lawyer and client or between a
minister, including a ChristianScience practitioner, and any person confessing to or being counseled by the minister, from testifying concerning child maltreatment.
Clergy can call themselves counselors in Ark. The Duggarts do not name the counselor(s).
http://centerforchildwelfare.fmhi.usf.edu/kb/cultcomp/clergy mandated reporters.pdf
Nope. I said exactly this:Are you suggesting that his "emerging" heterosexuality is what made him molest?
more grammar/spelling fanaticism?You can't even bring yourself to write out the term "Christian", you can't get their name correctly.
Not to mention this isn't the first thread in which you have defended the actions of a child molester. Hence your whining about "this whole episode in Sciforums" routine.
Any family who harbors and protects a child molester who is actively molesting children is endangering children and breaking the law.
oh, I read it alright.I take it you didn't read it?
This is about removing victims of child abuse from the home.
They were mandated reporters in at least 2003. And since this was not a confidential confession from Josh, any exemptions do not apply. Not the same. Josh did not go and confess to his priest. And such privilege only exists for "pastoral communications". Had you read what you linked, this would have been clear.
Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-507(b)(28), (c) (WESTLAW through 2003 Reg. Sess.)
When any of the following has reasonable cause to suspect that a child has been subjected to child maltreatment or
has died as a result of child maltreatment, or who observes a child being subjected to conditions or circumstances
that would reasonably result in child maltreatment, he or she shall immediately notify the child abuse hotline:
Any clergyman, which includes a minister, priest, rabbi, accredited Christian Science practitioner, or other similar
functionary of a religious organization, or an individual reasonably believed to be so by the person consulting him
or her, except to the extent he or she has acquired knowledge of suspected maltreatment through communications required to be kept confidential pursuant to the religious discipline of the relevant denomination or faith, or he or she received the knowledge of suspected maltreatment from the offender in the context of a statement of admission.
No privilege or contract shall prevent anyone from reporting child maltreatment when he or she is a mandated
reporter as required by this section.
And once again, the parents advised that they sent their children to "accredited" counselors. Accredited counselors are those who are professional counselor who are licensed. The parents advised they sent their children to an "accredited professional counselor". Do you understand what the word "accredited" means in the context of this discussion? If not, please say so and we can explain it to you.
Secondly, others at the Church knew - the family advised that a note was written about it by someone in their Church community, so it was clearly not kept confidential within that community.
Oh yes, because a clergyman is so certain to be "pure and good"... if that were true, why has a special Tribunal been created for the specific purpose of investigating negligence among bishops in preventing priests from sexually abusing children?
Sounds like an attempted appeal to authority (religious authority, but authority none the less)
Liberalism promotes transgender, where if one thinks they are another sex, even though the reality of their biological body does not agree, their mind gets to decide. If the criteria is the mind decides, why not excuse child molestation in terms of trans-age behavior, where a minor thinks there are trapped in an adult body. If this trapped child in the adult body is young enough, then this is minor on minor (I am extrapolating liberal doctrine, not condoning it, to show how absurd this will get, if you assume mind over matter and allows this for any and all).
How is that different from a male thinking he is female or female she is a male? The older people often dress and try to behave like they are kids again, so why not trans-age? The newest, is claiming one is black or any color, trapped in another skin color body. If we accept that, this means we can no longer have quotas, since this will discriminate agains all known and unknown trans-people, who may look lie they should be the victims of the quota, but whose mind allows them to qualify for its benefits.
If a child thinks they are an old man or old lady in a child's body, do they qualify for social security and medicare? Say a minor thinks they are older than 21; but the body, says 13. This they have legal adult status? Say you think you are really a dog or cat in a human body, can you pee in public on any fire hydrant? Liberal standards condone anything, with relative morality, yet they always complain as though they have the high moral ground.