Sect leader convicted in Utah

[Tiassa]

Warren Jeffs, age 51, the leader of a religious sect called the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, was convicted Today of being an accomplice to rape. Jennifer Dobner reports, for the Associated Press:

Prosecutors said Jeffs, who performed the ceremony, forced the girl into marriage and sex against her will. Jurors said they agreed Jeffs rejected the girl's pleas and refused to release her from the marriage ....

.... While polygamy itself was not on trial - the couple were monogamous - the case focused attention on the practice of polygamy in Utah, where it has generally been tolerated in the half-century since a government raid in 1953 proved a public relations disaster, with children photographed being torn from their mothers' arms.

Jeffs succeeded his father in 2002 as president of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Former members say he rules with an iron fist, demanding perfect obedience from followers and exercising the right to arrange marriages as well as break them up and assign new spouses ....

.... At the trial, widely different versions of the relationship - and Jeffs' influence - were presented by the woman and her former husband ....

.... The woman said the couple were married for at least a month before they had intercourse, her husband telling her it was "time for you to be a wife and do your duty."

"My entire body was shaking. I was so scared," she testified. "He just laid me on the bed and had sex."

Afterward, she slipped into the bathroom, where she downed two bottles of over-the-counter pain reliever and curled up on the floor, she said. "The only thing I wanted to do was die," she said.

But Steed testified that his teenage bride initiated their first sexual encounter, approaching him after he fell asleep in his clothes after a 12-hour day at work.

Under Utah law, a 14-year-old can consent to sex in some circumstances. But sex is not considered consensual if a person under 18 is enticed by someone at least three years older.

For reasons prosecutors have never explained, Steed has not been charged with a crime.

The mainstream Mormon Church, or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, renounced polygamy more than a century ago, excommunicates members who engage in the practice, and disavows any connection to the FLDS church. (SeattleTimes.com)

Jeffs was arrested during a traffic stop last year near Las Vegas. As he was on the FBI's most-wanted list, it does not seem surprising that he was found in possession of $57,000 cash, prepaid credit cards, multiple cell phones, and disguise materials including wigs and sunglasses. He also faces charges in Arizona, where he is accused of facilitating incest and sexual misconduct after allegedly arranging marriages between underage girls and their kin. Jeffs faces up to life in prison for the Utah convictions.

• • •​

I admit, the whole thing seems nearly psychotic. It starts to seem as if splinter sects like this or the Branch Davidian exist specifically to facilitate sex with young girls. And while there are many men who would say, "Well, duh!" such an explanation is insufficient. I would assert the obvious, that it is about controlling other people, and we can certainly have that discussion, but there are other aspects to consider.

One juror was dismissed during deliberation, and I'm curious as to why; perhaps we'll find out in days to come. It is also curious that the victim's husband has not been charged with statutory rape at least; is this a statute of limitations issue? Since the husband admitted having sex with the girl but claimed she initiated the act, there doesn't appear to be any deal in place.

To what degree, though, is freedom of religion a factor? Animal sacrifice is illegal, though the question comes up from time to time; American tribal descendants cannot use peyote; should religion be an excuse for forced marriage and rape? Americans generally reject arranged marriages, and tend to accept and even support statutory rape laws.

And don't get me wrong: it seems a Utah court has convicted a dangerous man for what I would consider crimes. But I won't pretend everyone shares that opinion; quite obviously, Jeffs has his supporters.

So is this conviction, as Jeffs and his attorney have argued, religious persecution? Or is it justice?
____________________

Notes:

Dobner, Jennifer. "Polygamist leader convicted in Utah". SeattleTimes.com/Associated Press. September 25, 2007. See http://archives.seattletimes.nwsour...web/vortex/display?slug=jeffs26&date=20070926​

 

[cosmictraveler]

So is this conviction, as Jeffs and his attorney have argued, religious persecution? Or is it justice

Justice in the laws of the state where he did this crime.

 

[Xev]

"My entire body was shaking. I was so scared," she testified. "He just laid me on the bed and had sex."

Afterward, she slipped into the bathroom, where she downed two bottles of over-the-counter pain reliever and curled up on the floor, she said. "The only thing I wanted to do was die," she said.

Jesus, that's the most depressing thing I've read all week.

 

[Tiassa]

It only gets more depressing

Jesus, that's the most depressing thing I've read all week.

Xev, you get one free "Fuck you" for what I'm about to do.

• • •​

I first heard of this story when Jeffs was arrested; I remember hearing about a religious leader arrested in a Cadillac near Las Vegas with wigs and so forth. It seemed bizarre, but it passed by.

The story finally set in my mind last November, with a reports from NPR:

• NPR.org, " Woman Testifies Against Polygamist Jeffs in Court"​

There are two stories from NPR's Howard Berkes; his report for Morning Edition, November 22, 2006, is the one I recall hearing. Also available from NPR.org are several excerpts from a preliminary hearing, including the accuser describing the consummation of her marriage:

And then he proceeded to undress himself, and then me, and I--this whole time I was so scared--I was just kind of frozen in place, and I just said, I says, "Please don't do this. I don't know what you're doing." And he just continued. And I said, "What are you doing?" And he said, "I'm doing what I'm supposed to." And he said again, "This is what I'm supposed to do to you. You are my wife. We're going to have children, and this is what has to be done." (NPR.org)

• • •​

Note: Jennifer Dobner's AP article, cited in the topic post has since been both edited and relocated at SeattleTimes.com. I have updated the link, but the article no longer reflects the cited text. I may be able to locate the cited text elsewhere.

A September 20, 2007 article by Nicholas Riccardi of the Los Angeles Times is also available from SeattleTimes.com, and considers the testimony of Allen Steed, the husband who has yet to be charged with rape, and also Jane Blackmoore:

Steed, now 26, has not been charged with a crime. On Wednesday, he testified that his wife had initiated their first sexual intercourse. "She rolled up close to me and asked me to scratch her back. ... I felt like she was ready to go forward," Steed said.

"I would have liked to have thought I was [in charge of the relationship]," he said, "but I never was."

The charges against Jeffs are a tactic employed in Utah to prosecute underage marriage. If convicted, he would face up to life in prison.

Steed, 19 when church leaders told him to marry his cousin, acknowledged Wednesday that he had been a clumsy suitor. Socializing between the sexes before marriage is prohibited in FLDS society.

"I'm sure it wasn't easy ... knowing now how I was then," Steed said softly.

Visibly uncomfortable, Steed had to stand to be heard and occasionally dabbed at tears. "I've never been really good at communication," he said.

Steed acknowledged that his cousin was standoffish to him and had made clear at times that she didn't desire the marriage. But other times she was affectionate, he said.

"Was there ever a time you had relations with [your cousin] where you believed you were forcing yourself?" defense attorney Wally Bugden asked.

"No," Steed said ....

.... The defense ended its case after Steed's testimony, and prosecutors called a sole rebuttal witness. Jane Blackmoore is a midwife who attended to the accuser when she had a miscarriage in 2002.

Blackmoore testified that the accuser said her husband was abusive. "She felt like she had been forced," Blackmoore said. "She didn't use the word 'sex' but said, 'My husband doesn't take no for an answer.' " (Riccardi)

____________________

Notes:

Berkes, Howard. "Woman Testifies Against Polygamist Jeffs in Court". Morning Edition, November 22, 2006. See http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6523761

Riccardi, Nicholas. "Witness in polygamist trial: Sex awkward but not forced". SeattleTimes.com, September 20, 2007. See http://archives.seattletimes.nwsour...web/vortex/display?slug=jeffs20&date=20070920​

See Also

Norris, Michelle and Howard Berkes. "Key Witness Testifies in Case Against Polygamist". All Things Considered, November 21, 2006. See http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6523761​

 

[Baron Max]

In India, Pakistan, Vietnam and many nations of the world, 13-yr old girls are routinely forced to marry old farts for some reason or other as an accepted part of their culture.

We should be careful to openly condemn the practice because, as most of y'all liberal doo-gooders say, we should accept all people and all cultures, and be nice to all people and all cultures. Yet here, we're condemning the cultural practices of this Utah culture.

Oh, my, what will our loving Muslim brothers think of us now?!

Baron Max

 

[Grantywanty]

In India, Pakistan, Vietnam and many nations of the world, 13-yr old girls are routinely forced to marry old farts for some reason or other as an accepted part of their culture.

We should be careful to openly condemn the practice because, as most of y'all liberal doo-gooders say, we should accept all people and all cultures, and be nice to all people and all cultures. Yet here, we're condemning the cultural practices of this Utah culture.

Oh, my, what will our loving Muslim brothers think of us now?!

Baron Max

Amazingly enough there are people who manage to criticize people of many cultures including their own who abuse children. You have a very limited view of the world and those you dislike.

 

[Xev]

A September 20, 2007 article by Nicholas Riccardi of the Los Angeles Times is also available from SeattleTimes.com, and considers the testimony of Allen Steed, the husband who has yet to be charged with rape, and also Jane Blackmoore:

Which baffles me. Even if marital rape isn't aknowledged as a crime in Utah, and even if prosecutors feared a lengthy trial with only the victim's testimony as evidence, don't they have enough to put him away for statutory rape, endangering the welfare of a child and so forth?

 

[wsionynw]

In India, Pakistan, Vietnam and many nations of the world, 13-yr old girls are routinely forced to marry old farts for some reason or other as an accepted part of their culture.

We should be careful to openly condemn the practice because, as most of y'all liberal doo-gooders say, we should accept all people and all cultures, and be nice to all people and all cultures. Yet here, we're condemning the cultural practices of this Utah culture.

Oh, my, what will our loving Muslim brothers think of us now?!

Baron Max

I don't see how a lack of sexual consent can be a cultural issue. Surely it's a moral issue, regardless of culture, tradition, religion, etc. Most decent humans agree that forcing people (or animals for that matter) to behave in a way that causes them suffering is morally wrong.
What's your view on forcing children to have sex Baron (please don't bore me with more comments about so called doo-gooder liberals)?

 

[Tiassa]

Maybe its a Utah thing?

Which baffles me. Even if marital rape isn't aknowledged as a crime in Utah, and even if prosecutors feared a lengthy trial with only the victim's testimony as evidence, don't they have enough to put him away for statutory rape, endangering the welfare of a child and so forth?

That question, more and more, is starting to dominate my outlook in this case. I'll look into it later, but is that online-petition site still around? Maybe we should petition Utah authorities to at least explain why they're not charging Steed. Part of me wants to plead that he's a victim, too, and, while he is, that doesn't exactly excuse him. I think it would be just a little scary if Utah prosecutors said, "Despite his words, we don't think a jury in this state would convict him." Maybe they'll say, "We couldn't have convicted Jeffs without him." One theory put forth last year (see Norris and Berkes, I think) was that authorities were protecting the victim's identity, but even in relating that notion, I'm having trouble seeing how that works. But that theory acknowledged that her identity was known once she testified in the preliminary hearing, so authorities in Utah have had a year in which to charge Steed, and haven't done so. Perhaps they will in the coming weeks, but for some reason, I doubt it will happen. I need to see the court transcript, though, because, according to the Riccardi article:

Steed said he understood his testimony could be used against him if he were to be charged but was willing to speak anyway. Under cross-examination, Steed said he did not believe the government's laws apply to him. (Riccardi)

I mean, really. What the hell is up with that? It sounds great that he's willing to testify against himself, except, of course, that he doesn't believe the law applies to him.

• • •​

We should be careful to openly condemn the practice because, as most of y'all liberal doo-gooders say, we should accept all people and all cultures, and be nice to all people and all cultures. Yet here, we're condemning the cultural practices of this Utah culture

So ... religion excuses incest? Rape?

Just for reference, what are the approximate boundaries, then? Does religion excuse murder? Does religion excuse a person from the law in general?
____________________

Notes:

Riccardi, Nicholas. "Witness in polygamist trial: Sex awkward but not forced". SeattleTimes.com, September 20, 2007. See http://archives.seattletimes.nwsour...web/vortex/display?slug=jeffs20&date=20070920​

See Also

Norris, Michelle and Howard Berkes. "Key Witness Testifies in Case Against Polygamist". All Things Considered, November 21, 2006. See http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6523761​

 

[Baron Max]

So ... religion excuses incest? Rape?

Huh? Where did I say anything about religion? If you'd taken the time to read my post, you'd have seen that it was about cultures that most of y'all seem to want to preserve!

Just for reference, what are the approximate boundaries, then? Does religion excuse murder? Does religion excuse a person from the law in general?

Again, I don't know where you got the religious issue? I was talking about culture, and as such, then, yes, culture can easily excuse "murder" if that's what the culture wants. As to the "law", that, too, is a cultural issue ...and they determine what laws they want and laws they don't want.

Or, wait, Tiassa, are you saying that your ideals are the best and only cultural ideals for the world's people? ...and that any deviation from your ideals is wrong?

And yet, didn't you make a post about Pakistan and how they should be left to work out their own internal problems without our interference? What if they decide something that you don't like? ...like hanging gay men? Would you still say that we shouldn't interfere?

Baron Max

 

[madanthonywayne]

Did any of you guys actually watch any of this trial? My wife loves Court TV so I saw a lot of it.

Apparently, the age of consent is 14 in Utah. So there's no statutary rape. Also, the girls parents approved of the marriage, which would make it legal. Although thru some technicality, the marriage wasn't legal because it was performed in Nevada.

Anyway, the "husband" came across as very sincere and likeable in his testimony. He seemed like a hick farmboy from over 100 years ago incapable of lying. The girl, by the way, cheated on him and got pregnant by some other man.

How can the relious leader be guilty of accesory to rape if no one was charged with rape? Not to mention that they at least believed themselves to be married and had parental consent!

The whole rape charge comes down to a "he said-she said" and the boy was quite believable. And if there was no rape.......how the fuck was Warren Jeffs guilty of being an accesory?

It seems utterly absurd to charge someone with being an accesory to a crime for which you haven't charged anyone. Especially when the guy who actually did the deed is right there in court testifying!!

I think this was a witch hunt and Warren Jeffs was found guilty because people find his views distasteful.

Please don't misinterpret this as approval on my part for Warren Jeffs' religious views or his promotion of incest, polygamy, etc. I just think he was railroaded in this case.

Perhaps Learned Hand, our resident lawyer, could give some input on this.

 

[Looney]

Warren Jeffs, age 51, the leader of a religious sect called the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, was convicted Today of being an accomplice to rape. Jennifer Dobner reports, for the Associated Press:

Excellent, let the bastard rot in prison.

 

[Xev]

Anyway, the "husband" came across as very sincere and likeable in his testimony. He seemed like a hick farmboy from over 100 years ago incapable of lying. The girl, by the way, cheated on him and got pregnant by some other man.

Ah, I love it. It's okay to force sex upon 14 year old kids because they might grow up and be sluts.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you don't believe that, so why does her sexual behavior have anything to do with this?
Especially as many sexually abused children become promiscuous later, perhaps as a method of coping.

It seems utterly absurd to charge someone with being an accesory to a crime for which you haven't charged anyone. Especially when the guy who actually did the deed is right there in court testifying!!

That is, odd, but I believe they can charge someone as accessory without them being convicted, so perhaps they are simply waiting on evidence to get the husband with?
This whole thing seems very confused on the prosecutor's part.

 

[S.A.M.]

Which baffles me. Even if marital rape isn't aknowledged as a crime in Utah, and even if prosecutors feared a lengthy trial with only the victim's testimony as evidence, don't they have enough to put him away for statutory rape, endangering the welfare of a child and so forth?

If Law and Order SVU is right, there is a five year statute of limitations on sexual assualt.

 

[Xev]

If Law and Order SVU is right, there is a five year statute of limitations on sexual assualt.

Which makes the "accessory to rape" charge even more bizarre.

 

[madanthonywayne]

If Law and Order SVU is right, there is a five year statute of limitations on sexual assualt.

That probably varies by state.

 

[Tiassa]

(Insert title here)

Apparently, the age of consent is 14 in Utah.

There's also a three-year barrier in Utah; Steed is five years older than his cousin/wife.

Not to mention that they at least believed themselves to be married and had parental consent!

The marriages are not recognized as legal. Steed has also acknowledged, according to the Riccardi article, some sort of context about the idea that the laws don't apply to him. I think in light of those two things the state can assert that people can believe whatever they want, but that doesn't mean it's legal. The church knows. And they do it anyway. And, it seems, they have a convenient argument for it. Or maybe not. Maybe Steed is a pioneer in arguing that the laws don't apply to him.

The whole rape charge comes down to a "he said-she said" and the boy was quite believable.

Both the press at large and attorneys at the trial believed that Steed, in his testimony, acknowledged criminal behavior; Steed, in fact, acknowledged that his testimony could be used against him if authorities charge him.

It seems utterly absurd to charge someone with being an accesory to a crime for which you haven't charged anyone. Especially when the guy who actually did the deed is right there in court testifying!!

There are legal justifications, but the most basic consideration suggests that the better thing to do than quibble with the accessory is to charge and convict the principal assailant.

I think this was a witch hunt and Warren Jeffs was found guilty because people find his views distasteful.

Well, he's charged in Arizona with arranging incestuous marriages for minors, which was, essentially what he did in the case for which he was convicted in Utah. So I'd like to focus on that statement for a moment, if we could:

Incestuous marriages for minors.​

You know, I do find his outlook repugnant. But when I look at the above phrase, I'm pretty sure there's something illegal about what it describes.

Perhaps Learned Hand, our resident lawyer, could give some input on this.

But this is such a sordid affair; would he sully his good name by getting into this one?

 

[Tiassa]

Practical effects

Huh? Where did I say anything about religion? If you'd taken the time to read my post, you'd have seen that it was about cultures that most of y'all seem to want to preserve!

Now, now ... calm down, Max.

It's just the practical effect at the core of consideration of cultural practices. Considering that this one is invented, it's curious that you should raise the issue. I mean, the tribal argument about peyote makes a certain amount of sense. I wouldn't make the same argument about hippies in the United States.

I was talking about culture, and as such, then, yes, culture can easily excuse "murder" if that's what the culture wants. As to the "law", that, too, is a cultural issue ...and they determine what laws they want and laws they don't want.

The problem with using the counterintuitive in an abstract argument is that you often need to justify it. The practical effect of considering cultural respect is what it demands. I'm willing to explore that assertion, but it would be helpful to understand what the boundaries of that argument are.

For instance, two things to consider:

• Ross, Rick. "A brief history of the polygamists in Colorado City, Arizona and Hildale, Utah". RickRoss.com, April 5, 2002. See http://www.rickross.com/reference/polygamy/polygamy4.html

• Winslow, Ben. "Arizona revokes badges of 2 FLDS town marshals". RickRoss.com, September 20, 2007. See http://www.rickross.com/reference/polygamy/polygamy714.html​

While Ross, a cultbuster by trade, notes that the FLDS can claim a heritage back to about 1847 and something that Brigham Young may or may not have said, or perhaps so a few years later, to a mass murderer, the actual FLDS is a Depression-era emergence following excommunications over polygamy. It's a difficult argument for cultural legitimacy, especially in light of being based on a revelation pulled out of a hat. Polygamy deviated against propriety and the law at the outset for the LDS. The argument that justifies incestuous, polygamist marriages involving minors is difficult to constrain because its implications are broad, and because the practical effects occur beyond a fundamental threshold of moral consideration. The cultural history of the society in which this movement developed disagrees with such practices on multiple points, and some of those counterpoints actually have rational bases. And that's where the cultural justification gets sticky. I have neither invented nor received any such justification. I'll worry about it when I'm surrounded by incestuous couples, or polygamist couples. If incest is really that important to people, it will happen. Nothing I can do to stop it, but I'm not going to be pissed off that I don't have a sister. I think polygamists are insane. And even I am aware of the phrase, "Three gets you five". So this thing with minors is a nearly impossible argument. I say nearly because the argument itself has to become irrelevant before such justifications exist. ("What about after the comet ....?")

So, yes, you're right, Max. There is at some level, a cultural argument that can be made, but somebody's going to have to convince me. I mean, these folks seemed to at least be willing to work for the government. That's the only point that matters to me about the Winslow article.

I don't buy it. They can certainly try to opt out of the law. But they can only get away with so much before the law notices.

You tend to forget, Max, when you get up on your high horse, that I don't have very many moral assertions. I believe in species and give the species the benefit of the doubt at the outset. Seriously. I think polygamists are insane. I see what marriage does to people. Wanting more than one wife, for instance, is insane. Turns out I'm wrong, not much I can do about it. And yes, I think cultural prohibitions against incest and banging children have a rational foundation, and the only real question of propriety about the prohibition is whether or not it's insane. I mean, in this FLDS culture, many girls have absolutely no sex education at the time of their consummation. I think this is hurtful. It's a taboo or prohibition that causes harm. Turns out I'm wrong, not much I can do about it.

As to hanging people, what does it matter if they're gay? Why should anyone be hanging anybody? I mean, come on. Really.

 

[madanthonywayne]

Well, he's charged in Arizona with arranging incestuous marriages for minors, which was, essentially what he did in the case for which he was convicted in Utah. So I'd like to focus on that statement for a moment, if we could:

That's what he should have been charged with. Because he clearly did do that. Anyway, I've heard they finally charged the "husband". I really don't understand why he wasn't charged in the first place.

Unless they were thinking they'd have to offer the "husband" a deal to get his testimony and the prosecuters may have been surprised by the husband's willingness to testify without any kind of deal

I'll bet that's it.

 

[Nasor]

There's also a three-year barrier in Utah; Steed is five years older than his cousin/wife.

But Utah's three-year barrier doesn't apply if the people involved are married. And, somewhat astoundingly, it's actually legal for a 14-year-old to marry a 19-year-old in Nevada (where their marriage ceremony was performed) if the parents consent. It was still technically illegal, since they simply had a ceremony without properly registering the marriage with the state, but they were actually obeying the spirit of the law. I could imagine the state being reluctant to prosecute him, especially since in his defense he will surely point out that what he did was only technically illegal due to his failure to fill out some paperwork in Nevada. He apparently was actually taking the marriage seriously, so it doesn't appear that the non-official marriage was just a scam to allow him to indulge in sexual deviancy. Of course, his behavior was so distasteful that you might get an entire jury to convict him anyway.

It’s a really bizarre situation. Even though the whole thing is grossly repugnant, it was actually very very close to being legal (and indeed probably would have been legal, if he had bothered to make the marriage official with the state of Nevada). You could re-do the whole scenario with a 19-year-old and a 17-year-old, and even though legally everything would be exactly the same, I strongly suspect that most juries would just shrug and go “Eh, they were close enough to being legal. We shouldn’t send this guy to jail for neglecting to file the proper marriage paperwork, especially since they did actually have a ceremony and appeared to be serious about the marriage.” But like I said, I suspect that this guy is probably detestable enough that jurors might not bother with that sort of thinking.