Emeraldkitty - I’d have said no too.
@VeryHappy I’m pretty sure that is forbidden. The casual reading I have done about these religions always notes that the only proper expression of any sexuality is conventional intercourse in a heterosexual marriage. No masturbation, no pornography, no thinking lustful thoughts 
Even “courtship” is different from dating because dating implies feelings that are not permitted in courtship. Even dating partners who remain celibate or not very involved physically.
@Hoggirl Someone else mentioned the SoL had changed. But I still see this, which sections by degree and class:
For class B, class C, class D, and unclassified felonies, within three years after commission of the offense
http://apps.rainn.org/policy-crime-definitions/index.cfm?state=Arkansas&group=7
Is that out of date? The rags are saying his felony is class B.
I can link to the Arkansas definitions of those classes. That says, " Sexual assault in the second degree is a Class D felony if committed by a person less than eighteen (18) years of age with a person, not the person’s spouse, who is less than fourteen (14) years of age."
In #223, @nottelling said that the police investigated the crimes in 2006 and decided not to proceed. In #231, I posted the InTouch article saying that in 2006 the statute of limitations had expired. In #232, nottelling smacked me down, saying that because the alleged victims were minors, the statute of limitations had not expired.
So now, what is the story here? Was the statute of limitations over, or was it not?
@swimcatsmom - Say Yes to the Dress is still on. Friday nights TLC.
I do watch these reality shows. I like seeing how different families function - different from mine in terms of family size, parents of multiples, socioeconomic, etc. But I am increasing concerned that these shows are not good for the children being filmed. I respect the families of quints, etc. who have limited their tv exposure to the occasional special. I’m sure it brings them some much needed income - but they limit the over-exposure.
What’s the difference to the Duggars of courting versus dating?
Apparently it’s “dating with a purpose” -
I believe the Arkansas SOL for sexual assault was amended in 2013. Here is the amended law with the changes highlighted by crossing out the old language. Since we do not know the exact nature of what transpired with those 5 young women it is hard to determine exactly what he would be charged with.
http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/2013/2013R/Bills/SB92.pdf
Dating is not acceptable to them - as in dating several different people in a casual way to see if you click with someone.
They take it very seriously. Courting is a period of chaperoned getting to know one parent-approved individual - with an expectation that it will lead to engagement and marriage. I watched the episodes when Jill and Derick were courting and Ben and Jessa - and they never had a moment of privacy. Parents monitored phone calls and texts. Outings had one or more sibling chaperones.
Besides their hyper vigilance against any physical contact - the Duggar parents spoke repeatedly about wanting to prevent heartbreak. One of the websites explained that dating multiple people meant giving away pieces of your heart - and then you had less to offer your future spouse.
Courting is with the clear intention of marriage to that person, a last (well, the ONLY) stage before becoming engaged. Josiah will marry that gal, unless they change their minds. (One of the Bates girls did.) To most of us, dating is exploring and having fun, learning what matters.
HM1, but look at this: http://acasa.us/pdfs/Sexual-assault-laws.pdf
@“Cardinal Fang”
At the time the incidents occurred (2002/2003) the Statute of Limitations was three years. They were reported/discovered (not sure how you want to phrase it) in 2006 when the SOL was still at three years. That time had run, and thus Josh was not eligibile for prosecution. The law on the SOL did not change until later - after these events occurred. I do believe (but am not certain and have not dug enough) that there might have been an interim change in the SOL sometime between then and the new legislation signed into law in 2013. However, that might have been in regard to the running of the civil law (v. criminal) SOL.
Here is a snip from that article I linked up thread:
SNIP
On Dec. 20 of that year, investigators concluded the statute of limitations had expired, precluding any possible sexual-assault charges. The case was sent to the Washington County prosecutor for review. Circuit Judge John Threet, a deputy prosecutor at the time, said he didn’t recall the case but wouldn’t be allowed under the law to comment on the matter even if he did. END OF SNIP
There was no cover up by officials. It was simply too late at that point in time to do anything given the duration of the SOL. So, it appears that the police investigators determined this, but then sent it on to John Threet for review even though they had made the determination already.
The “cover up” part comes in with the confusion of language in Josh’s statement which talks about his “speaking to authorities.” We have no idea what that means. It could be authorities within his church. It could mean the now-in-prison child pornographer/state trooper who gave him a stern talking to. THAT person could have likely been a mandatory reporter who failed to report. My understanding is that definition can be fuzzy depending on the context, but I really don’t know. Given his later arrests and incarceration, it isn’t surprising that he would not have been heavily influenced by a mandatory reporting law.
And now we have this surfacing: “In the unearthed clip, Duggar talks about going to the movies on a date with Anna, his then fiancee and now wife. Noting how family members can’t go on dates unchaperoned before getting married, Duggar said his sister Jinger was going to tag along, but couldn’t because it was an 18-years-or-older film, and she was underage. Duggar then said he picked sister Jana and brother John David to come along instead. “We thought, why not have a double date,” joked Duggar, before adding with a laugh, “We are from Arkansas, no?” The incest allusion went largely ignored at the time.”
Looks to me that Sec. 5-14-103 would be applicable @lookingforward. That is if the press accounts correctly describe what he did. So I am thinking it falls under the definition of “sexual contact.” Oddly though they do not define “incest” in that statute you referenced. Probably defined elsewhere.
It is mind- boggling how convoluted they make these statutes.
SYttD is still on, but one has to tolerate all the adds for 19 Kids, Sister Wives and My 600 Pound Life - I have just decided that it’s no longer worth the trade off.
@teriwtt - I saw that too - but I think it was just a silly joke. Although it is raising eyebrows in light of recent revelations.
I haven’t researched the issue, nor do I intend to, but in 2006, the Arkansas statute of limitations provided that if the statute of limitations set forth elsewhere in the code had expired:
“a prosecution may nevertheless be commenced for [specified violations] if, when the offense occurred, the offense was committed against a minor, the violation has not been previously reported to a law enforcement agency or prosecuting attorney, and the [statute of lim period] has not expired since the victim reached the age of 18.” Ar St s 5-1-109(h).
The violations to which that provision applied in 2006 included sexual assault in the first, second, third, and fourth degrees and incest. There are all sorts of legal and factual questions that would have to be analyzed to determine whether that provision would have applied to this case, including, among MANY other things, whether it would apply to a juvenile offender.
I do not intend to do that analysis. This is my last word on any legal analysis on this subject.
Sister Wives! At least their kids go to college. And express dissatisfaction, at times. And get in trouble with the parents. You forgot the hoarders. Boy, we have a lot of low aiming in tv. Let’s all go read a book.
My best friend watches sister wives. I don’t understand why - ick! I must confess to having watched hoarders a couple of times. Maybe because I’m married to a hoarder - perhaps I thought it would give me some hope (it was just depressing)
This whole discussion is making me happy that I got rid of my television / cable service all together.