CMM, I can see why you withhold judgment and basically understand why. But in this case, we are talking, in a non theoretical way, about a fellow who admits to unwanted touching and he/his parents would like the conversation to end there. In effect, bury it. Some of us are, understandably uncomfortable. And especially because the purported wounding of others was his cause celebre, his and his employer’s very public efforts were about pointing fingers at others, building suspicion of others and working to deny them what many feel are rights. (If there’s another way to word that, feel free. But they were vigorously campaigning against a segment of our society.) I think that, in a secular conversation, it’s understandable the word “hypocrit” comes up.
This would be different if he were home, selling is used cars and someone caught him saying something.
It’s a story in itself, but I had someone say to me, “No matter what I did to you, I know Jesus forgives me.” The words are etched in memory. She made her peace with her conscience and her faith. I was the one, so to say, on the ground, left to pick up the pieces, over a number of years. She was at peace. I was scrambling. Something wrong there. Something ethically wrong. And likewise in the Duggar situation.
Nottelling it compounds the unease that he did not get counseling or rehabilitation. He went off to help on a building project for a few months. He may be fine today. (Who knows?) But if some 12 or 14 y.o. neighbor kid did this to mine, darned straight I’d be pursuing it with authorities, looking for some appropriate actions.
To answer the question (I’ve been offline for a few hours!), of course I didn’t mean “Christians” in general, even if one defines that word narrowly to mean only evangelical/fundamentalist Protestants (which I certainly do not). I meant the Duggars (who are certainly sufficiently numerous to constitute a crowd!), and people like Huckabee who serve as their apologists despite living in houses equally made of glass. More specifically, I mean people who spend an enormous amount of time viciously attacking and defaming people like me – and people like my son – who’ve never done anything to harm anyone, while excusing the actual misdeeds of their own children. Or their own misdeeds.
As far as I know, neither of the people who asked what I meant spends their lives vilifying trans people or gay people, so no, I don’t include them in my condemnation and have no interest in which of the 625 or so commandments they might violate, privately or publicly…
Yes, of course, I completely agree that action should be taken against juvenile offenders. If my child were the victim, I would do everything in my power to ensure that occurred. (Well, I don’t know what I would do if my child were also the perpetrator other than making sure he was out of the house with no access to my daughters. In other words, I don’t know if I would pursue criminal charges against my own kid. I would seek psychiatric care, for sure, but I can’t say if I would press for criminal charges.).
The complicating factor for me in this case is that the criminal authorities did review the changes at the time and decided not to proceed. My question – more generally, and not necessarily in connection with this case – what consequences should there be to adults due to juvenile offenses that have already been considered and dealt with (no matter how ineptly) by the criminal justice system? Should the consequences for juvenile sex offenders ( specifically, age 14) be the same as for adults? I can’t say they should be.
I really feel for the Duggar girls. To be in the public domain as victims, trying to deal with what happened with zero privacy, to be subject to speculation. Some of them are adults now but, when younger, probably had zero choice whether they wanted their lives to be the subject of a tv show. They have been limited to a very narrow path of life choices and now this scandal…
I think many people are wanting to understand how Jim Bob and Michelle allowed this to happen, but WHY they did not insist on Josh getting proper counseling and not some sort of work punishment with a friend of the family. I’m guessing most of that decision fell on Jim Bob’s shoulders as he is clearly the ‘head of the family’. But I think many of us would have been more forgiving if she had perhaps, stood up to Jim Bob and said, “No, this kid needs professional intervention, and I’m insisting on it.” But she didn’t. In fact, I don’t think anyone here has mentioned that, in the police reports, Jim Bob and Michelle have differing views on exactly what Josh’s punishment was. Jim Bob indicates he got counseling from a mentor, and Michelle says he did manual work for a friend, who, when asked if he was a mentor, replied, “Well, yea, sort of.” (or something along those lines. In fact, when I picked up on that discrepancy in their reports, I sort of became worried for Michelle, because I’m sure Jim Bob was not happy to find out she did not corroborate his report. Anyway, I am suggesting Michelle did not stand up for Josh’s needing real professional help, or insisting on the girls getting professional help because her own bulimia history suggests she might have been a victim of sexual abuse herself. There is a strong link between people who develop bulimia and being the victims of sexual abuse. If she was abused, then it could explain so much about her own behavior and willingness to be so submissive in her life. That is why bringing it up is relevant.
I’m a firm believer that we’re only hearing parts of this family’s stories. I think in time, as the children get older and go off on their own, other stuff will eventually come out. And I hope that Jana does get out of the house and go to college like she has said she wants to do, although Jim Bob is not happy with that.
^ This is something that I feel pretty strongly about. I’m perfectly okay with child actors, but I would really like to have a voluntary ban on minors appearing in reality shows. They can’t consent to such an intrusive invasion of privacy. I know their parents consent, but it just seems wrong, wrong wrong. I cannot imagine living my childhood and teenage years live on national TV. In my opinion it is negligent parenting.
Me too, @doschicos The kids had no say in TV show or no tv show. I’d like to hope that there were enough good times for them that it wasn’t a total negative. They really do seem to like their crew…
Interestingly, we know quite a few families whose children have no choice but to go along with the family extreme lifestyle …be that extreme sports families, extreme academic families (ie, Saturday cultural school, or extreme SAT prep starting in elementary school). Those can also be very narrow life paths. It makes me happy that even though I will admit to moments of tiger parenting (no, you cannot quit t-ball after the third game because you’d rather watch TV, or requiring our kids to practice their musical instruments daily), our kids seem to have fond memories of childhood. Those narrow path folks…I can only think of one whose kids are really well adjusted. I guess it goes to show there are lots of ways to mess up your kids. The Duggars weren’t the first to try to hyper-control their kids’ lives, and they won’t be the last.
I absolutely agree, DosChicos. I wish this could have been reported in a way in which the identity of the victims would not be revealed. The parents ought to be absolutely and totally ashamed of themselves. At a time when their number 1 priority should have been protecting and caring for and getting treatment for those girls, they exposed the family to insane amounts of publicity. This is after they already knew that the allegations were out there and at a time that they should have understood the possibility that the acts would be made public. They should have been in crisis mode. What kind of twisted parents agree to a reality show at the very moment that the family is in a midst of a serious and (in my mind) almost unbearable crisis? In my mind, it was child abuse to put those girls through that. Having cameras on the family pretty much guaranteed that no dialog could occur.
The police didn’t investigate at the time. They investigated three years later. They decided not to proceed because the statute of limitations was already over, not because he hadn’t committed serious crimes. The police investigated in 2006; the incidents occurred in 2002 and 2003. The statute of limitations is three years.
[quote]
Josh Duggar was investigated for multiple sex offenses — including forcible fondling — against five minors. Some of the alleged offenses investigated were felonies. Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar were interview by the Springdale Police department on Dec. 12, 2006. The report says that James told police he was alerted in March, 2002 by a female minor that Josh — who turned 14-years-old that month — had been touching her breasts and genitals while she slept. This allegedly happened on multiple occasions. In 2006, Jim Bob told police that in July, 2002 Josh admitted to fondling a minor’s breasts while she slept. “James said that they disciplined (redacted, Josh) after this incident.” The family did not alert authorities.
[snip]
Police had to abandon pursuing charges because the [then] three-year statute of limitations had expired.
InTouch’s legal analysis is wanting. That is not generally the way statutes of limitations work for crimes (especially sex crimes) against minors. When the victims are still minors at the time of the report to the police, the statute generally starts to run at the time of the report. But I really don’t i tend to debate the law with you, CF
I have always despised this family, the brain washed mother, the over bearing father and their horrendous. …blanket training…Google it. The men have always seemed really off to me and I always felt sorry for the girls who essentially parent and educate the younger kids while Michelle travels the country. What I really despise is forcing kids into the position of being role models to the rest of the world. They were children themselves. I didn’t even like my kids in the position of having to teach classmates in middle school with those kooky new age math curriculum.
Honestly I’d like those parents held accountable and private counseling for all the kids.
I can’t say I’d turn my son into the police but I’d for sure keep him from his sister and there would be major psychiatric therapy.
If Oprah found this out years ago did lifetime just look the other way?
CMM stated it well - if your 14 year old committed an offense, most of us would NOT run to the police as a first step. Even if it involved our other children. I worked in this field (child molestation) for a number of years, and it really is a no win situation. If you seek help from a mental health professional for the victims (perhaps your other children) the mandatory reporting laws are going to get the police/social services at your door immediately. Some or all of the children would probably be removed, and if you have no friends or relatives who are qualified to care for them (perhaps a foster care license required), they’d most likely end up in foster care for short or long term. IMO, this separation from the family is harder on the victims. I’ve seen the kids end up with grandparents who are far from understanding what the ‘big deal’ is, sometimes because the grandparents or others aren’t told all the facts, sometimes because they don’t believe it is a crime. Either way, the child/victim isn’t getting the emotional support needed in the time of crisis. They are probably getting professional help less than once a week. They just want to go HOME.
If the Dugger’s had gone immediately to the police, it’s my opinion that they most likely would have removed all the girls from the home. Authorities would have had no way of knowing if it was just one son or others in the household. There wouldn’t have been enough evidence to arrest Josh, and it is much harder to find a foster home for one 14 year old boy than 5 girls in most states. The girls would have been traumatized to have been yanked from their home. Perhaps the parents could have split up and one stayed in one home with the boys and the other in another home with the girls, but at that time (2003?) they probably didn’t have the money for things they have now, and it would have been a LOT of money - lawyers, therapists, two homes, court fees, assessment fees. A LOT of money.
I really believe the first response of most people who find themselves in this position would be to try to handle it themselves, through their church communities. I don’t find the Duggar’s position hypocritical at all. They do believe that Josh’s actions were wrong, they do not support child molesters, they do not think it is acceptable or no big deal. They just wanted to handle it themselves and not have their children, all their children, further traumatized Did they make a mistake? All of you think they did, but I don’t think it would have been any better if it had all been public 10 years ago when the girls were 8-12 years old. It is terrible now, but how would it have been for these girls to have had to testify against their brother? I’ve seen kids have to do it and it is awful, and I don’t think most of them feel better, have justice. All they want is to go home.
If my kids were molested by a non-family member, I’d think long and hard before involving the police just because of the effect on the victims, not because I was trying to protect the abuser. If the abuser was also my child, it would be a horrible choice.
These girls are going to realize one day that what happened to them, what was done TO them, was second or third or last to be considered compared to what might happen to others. Shame on the parents for not doing more for the victims.
If they weren’t aberrant, they wouldn’t have been on television in the first place, so it is unlikely that we would know about them if they were more mainstream.
The Duggars actually did not consult " the police", they consulted a friend who was a state trooper with very poor judgment.
Josh Duggar did not get counseling according to his mother.
There is also no indication that the victims received therapy.