Sexual Misconduct

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Ah but you are mistaken..

"Records of the arrest of a juvenile, the detention of a juvenile shall be confidential and shall not be subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act."

So yea Police leaked them.

http://www.tmz.com/2015/05/22/oprah-cancels-josh-duggar-molestation-chicago-taping-19-kids-and-counting/

Juvenile records are not protected from FOIA inquiry if the criminal activity involved the sexual victimization of another minor per the Juvenile Court Act of 1987:

"Reports in which minors are the victims of sex crimes or are incidentally mentioned are not exempt in full, but the names of the minors may be redacted."

Records are only sealed by a court and by court order.

This case never went to court because:

[list=1][*]The parents did not report the abuse for 18 months, which is half of the statute of limitations.

[*]The officer to whom they reported the abuse, a family friend who is now serving a 56-year sentence for child pornography, did not file any charges.

[*]The parents refused to cooperate with the investigation, and the statute of limitations eventually passed.[/list=1]

The sheriff's report are public records of which the only legal requirement is the redaction of the names of minors.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
"2.The officer to whom they reported the abuse, a family friend who is now serving a 56-year sentence for child pornography, did not file any charges."

Excellent judgmental call on the parents. Yeah, I know. They probably didn't now that the person they were handing their deranged son over to was a degenerate himself.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Honestly I don't think you care much, you seem to care more about Josh speaking out against the LGBT community, which makes him a hypocrite, however In Touch going public with this to deface and spite the family without thinking of the girls that already went through this once is deplorable.

I think the public had a right to know. This family has been trying to present a certain image of themselves. But the one guy was fondling his sisters? That is creepy and sick.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
I feel bad for the daughters. They really didn't deserve this shit.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Honestly I don't think you care much, you seem to care more about Josh speaking out against the LGBT community, which makes him a hypocrite, however In Touch going public with this to deface and spite the family without thinking of the girls that already went through this once is deplorable.

Jim Bob and Michelle "defaced and spited" their own family.

When the first daughter who was victimized came forward and reported the abuse, they did nothing.

They did not act until 18 months later when three more of their daughters came forward and reported being abused as well.

After this, he went on to molest his cousin as well.

Had they acted after the first victim came forward, there would not have been four additional victims.

That is deplorable.

Forcing those girls to live with their abuser is deplorable.

Broadcasting their lives on television, publicizing their family, and inviting scrutiny, knowing this is in their past and could possible come out is deplorable.

Those parents are concerned about the well-being of those girls one bit.

Exposing the abuse they allowed to happen and then tried to cover up in order to shield their precious son from consequences is justice.

I always found the entire family to be creepy to be honest. Maybe creepy isn't the word, but something seemed..off about them.

Originally posted by Robtard
Excellent judgmental call on the parents. Yeah, I know. They probably didn't now that the person they were handing their deranged son over to was a degenerate himself.

I am sure they did know.

For example, Evangelical Christians do not accept the concept of sexual orientation. So one is not a homosexual, he is just someone who struggles with same-sex attraction. Same-sex sexual activity is simply sexual immorality. If one is not actively engaging in said activity, he is not a homosexual.

In their interview with Megan Kelley, Jim Bob and Michelle stated they do not believe that Josh is a pedophile, because he is no longer engaging in the sexual immorality with children.

This mindset is one of the reasons child sexual abuse is so pervasive in the church.

They do not see child abusers or pedophiles as people with persistent, difficult to treat psychiatric disorders.

They see them as ordinary people who are struggling with a sexual sin that can be overcome through Christ.

That their friend the sheriff was struggling with the sexual sin of pornography is probably why they brought their son to him in the first place.

He is an authority figure who can credibly threaten their son but whom will not actually do anything, and is also someone who can relate to him about his struggle with sexual sin.

Knowing how these people operate, that is too much of a coincidence to be happenstance.

I sincerely hope that's incorrect (them knowing), just makes them bigger scumbags if so.

But now that you mentioned it, I can imagine the scenario: "Son, talk with this man, he had the same demons as you do and through the power of Christ he rid himself of them."

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I am sure they did know.

For example, Evangelical Christians do not accept the concept of sexual orientation. So one is not a homosexual, he is just someone who struggles with same-sex attraction. Same-sex sexual activity is simply sexual immorality. If one is not actively engaging in said activity, he is not a homosexual.

In their interview with Megan Kelley, Jim Bob and Michelle stated they do not believe that Josh is a pedophile, because he is no longer engaging in the sexual immorality with children.

This mindset is one of the reasons child sexual abuse is so pervasive in the church.

They do not see child abusers or pedophiles as people with persistent, difficult to treat psychiatric disorders.

They see them as ordinary people who are struggling with a sexual sin that can be overcome through Christ.

That their friend the sheriff was struggling with the sexual sin of pornography is probably why they brought their son to him in the first place.

He is an authority figure who can credibly threaten their son but whom will not actually do anything, and is also someone who can relate to him about his struggle with sexual sin.

Knowing how these people operate, that is too much of a coincidence to be happenstance.

I have to agree that this is the mindset of many fundamentalist Christians.

So sad.

Originally posted by Surtur
I think the public had a right to know. This family has been trying to present a certain image of themselves. But the one guy was fondling his sisters? That is creepy and sick.

I believe he was 14 when the fondling happened. Which makes him a minor. Now if you had kids you probably would have done the same thing. I believe the law states its up to the parents to decide what to do. I don't think it was morally right to leek it to the media, when the problem had been addressed years ago. It would be one thing if he was doing this as an adult yes? But a 14 year old, seems the law gives the parents authority what to do.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Juvenile records are not protected from FOIA inquiry if the criminal activity involved the sexual victimization of another minor per the Juvenile Court Act of 1987:

"Reports in which minors are the victims of sex crimes or are incidentally mentioned are not exempt in full, but the names of the minors may be redacted."

Records are only sealed by a court and by court order.

This case never went to court because:

[list=1][*]The parents did not report the abuse for 18 months, which is half of the statute of limitations.

[*]The officer to whom they reported the abuse, a family friend who is now serving a 56-year sentence for child pornography, did not file any charges.

[*]The parents refused to cooperate with the investigation, and the statute of limitations eventually passed.[/list=1]

The sheriff's report are public records of which the only legal requirement is the redaction of the names of minors.

It didn't go to court because of reasons I mentioned above, he was 14, and the law there dictates how the parents handle it. I doubt the parents had any clue the sherriff they sent him too had a sick problem of child pornography. Unless you think they willfully sent there child who was having a touching problem to a known child pornographer. Anyways I know he spoke out against LBGT community about child touching, and that makes him a hypocrite, however, everyone is hypocrites at some point in there life, and something he did at 14, is he held accountable for it for the rest of his life?

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
I believe he was 14 when the fondling happened. Which makes him a minor. Now if you had kids you probably would have done the same thing. I believe the law states its up to the parents to decide what to do. I don't think it was morally right to leek it to the media, when the problem had been addressed years ago. It would be one thing if he was doing this as an adult yes? But a 14 year old, seems the law gives the parents authority what to do.

I think the issue is that after the parents found out about the first incident, theirs actions or inactions allowed him to attack four(?) more victims.

Originally posted by Robtard
I think the issue is that after the parents found out about the first incident, theirs actions or inactions allowed him to attack four (?) more victims.

From the interview I watched, it sounded like they jumped on it as soon as they found out about it. They separated him from the girls, he was not allowed to be alone with anyone other then the parents at any given time. Then some more touching happened and they sent him to counseling.

Bottom line, the situation is fcked because the kid was a minor, and had some issues. No legal recourse would really happen, because of that. Its a very complicated situation, I don't think it did anyone help but the media too leak a 15 year old story, on which the family had gotten passed.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
From the interview I watched, it sounded like they jumped on it as soon as they found out about it. They separated him from the girls, he was not allowed to be alone with anyone other then the parents at any given time. Then some more touching happened and they sent him to counseling.

Bottom line, the situation is fcked because the kid was a minor, and had some issues. No legal recourse would really happen, because of that. Its a very complicated situation, I don't think it did anyone help but the media too leak a 15 year old story, on which the family had gotten passed.

Seems like they didn't do enough, considering her went on to molest four more victims. Which is what my point about "being the issue" was.

If they weren't public figures who use their public figure status to give voice to matters, I'd probably agree. But they are and seeing/hearing how holier-than-thou ranters are really just shitbags sells.

edit: I'd also like to point out another fact that someone brought up about this family being sold as "the ideal moral family". It's apparently a farce and imo, it's important that people who take what this family says to heart know the truth.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
I believe he was 14 when the fondling happened. Which makes him a minor. Now if you had kids you probably would have done the same thing. I believe the law states its up to the parents to decide what to do. I don't think it was morally right to leek it to the media, when the problem had been addressed years ago. It would be one thing if he was doing this as an adult yes? But a 14 year old, seems the law gives the parents authority what to do.

Even a 14 yr. old should know better then to fondle his sisters. The parents also had the kids who had been molested living in the same house as the one who did the molesting. Is that a parent whose judgement you trust?

Originally posted by Surtur
Even a 14 yr. old should know better then to fondle his sisters.

I think he did, thats why he confessed. I don't think punishing the family by national coverage is appropriate is what I am saying. This is Arkansas after all 😛

Originally posted by Surtur
The parents also had the kids who had been molested living in the same house as the one who did the molesting. Is that a parent whose judgement you trust?

From my understanding they removed him from the house after.

On the other hand, in their show they tried to give off this squeaky clean "I go on my daughters dates with her!" image. They were also far too preachy even BEFORE this news came out.

When you try to concoct a certain image in the media..I don't think you can be upset if someone reveals news shattering that image.

Originally posted by Surtur
On the other hand, in their show they tried to give off this squeaky clean "I go on my daughters dates with her!" image. They were also far too preachy even BEFORE this news came out.

When you try to concoct a certain image in the media..I don't think you can be upset if someone reveals news shattering that image.

They gave a pretty good explanation as for there actions by trying to protect there daughters as well as there son at the same time, so I can understand why they were being pulled in two different directions. I think this can be chalked up too, no mater how good you want to be, every family has secrets.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
I believe he was 14 when the fondling happened. Which makes him a minor. Now if you had kids you probably would have done the same thing. I believe the law states its up to the parents to decide what to do. I don't think it was morally right to leek it to the media, when the problem had been addressed years ago. It would be one thing if he was doing this as an adult yes? But a 14 year old, seems the law gives the parents authority what to do.

[list=1][*]A 14-year-old knows it is wrong to put his fingers inside the vagina a 5-year-old, which is what he did and is the age of the youngest victim.

[*]The molestation began when he was 14, but continued until he was nearly 17.[/list]

Any other adult who had been given that information would have had a legal and moral responsibility to report it. Why should the parents be held to a lesser standard than a total stranger?

Moreover, the parents did not address the abuse whatsoever. They sent Josh to live with a family friend for a few months to help him renovate a building for his business. When he returned, they made him apologize to his sisters, and made his sisters forgive him. Then they made his sisters live in the same household with him and broadcast the entire awkward living situation on national television.

Yea if it continued past 14, that's a big deal and he had been told "no" thats a big deal. Whatever happened though, seems this would have been better left to the family and authorities rather then media.