Persecution or Prosecution of the Polygamists?
It isn’t often that I can say Bob Lonsberry is exactly correct about something. This article is one of those few cases.
UPDATE 04/18/2008 11:03AM: Guy Murray at Messenger and Advocate has an even better rundown on the weakness of Texas’ case after the first day of hearings.
14 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Interesting points. I agree with some, but not all.
While the following may be true, ‘This has never happened before in our country’s history, and there’s a reason for that. Always before, basic rules of due process have prevented a seizure of this magnitude.’
…worse things have happened. The last time happened to be to the early Mormon faith.
While I understand and agree with the sentiment that the individual constitutional rights have been violated, and many privacies have been neglected, how exactly do you deal with a group like this? I’m not excusing the actions of the Texas government, just asking, what should have been done?
There are more than a few documented cases of youth and adults who have left this group and similar ones reporting abuse, statutory rape, underage marriage and lack of education. They have evaded the law using almost every tactic known, including straddling state and international boundaries, and hiring an ‘internal’ local policing force.
The checks and balances do not exist in such a group. No rights are afforded the children who are held in a living mental captivity.
How do you afford the rights of each child without breaking into the rights of such a controlling group?
What should be done?
Comment by cody — April 17, 2008 @ 6:29 pm
For starters I’d focus on the men who are “marrying” and raping these young women. That seems a more sensible approach than taking innocent kids away from parents who can’t be proven to have done anything illegal or immoral to their own children.
Comment by Jeremy Manning — April 17, 2008 @ 11:40 pm
Where else are you going to gain evidence and testimony? The children are your only source of truth with this group. Texas has talked with Utah and Arizona for 4 years before coming to this sad conclusion.
Physical evidence of abuse has been found among the children as several pregnant teen girls are among the group. Are they to be sent back to a community of no witnesses because the initial call to authorities was a hoax?
I’m sure the next intended step is to call these men to the stand once the burden of proof has been established.
Few times have there been cases like this where the perpetrators have a firm grip and control exhibited through force. These men have obvious motives. They have silenced a community. The usual methods of due process have allowed for multiple child endangerments over decades. Is that right?
Think of it this way. Let’s say one of those children were yours. Would you want government intervention? Would you think it not a bad thing for your child to be raised in that community? What responsibility does society have then?
Comment by cody — April 18, 2008 @ 7:54 am
It is exactly because I’ve thought about what my position would be if one of these children were mine that I’m so opposed to Texas’ method of dealing with this.
They’ve assumed every parent in the community guilty of a crime and forcfully removed the children from every family.
If the government had taken my children without any evidence that I personally had committed a crime against them I’d be very ticked off.
Texas is wrong. There is a right way and a wrong way to protect these kids. Taking every one of them away from their parents isn’t the right way. We may have biases against these people because we don’t agree with their lifestyle but unless the government has iron clad evidence that the kids are actually in immediate danger there isn’t any justification for what officials in Texas have done.
Now you try turning this around. What if our church changed its policy on polygamy and we became the pariahs the FLDS are. Would you think the government would be justified in taking your kids away? The last time our church practiced polygamy young girls were being married off in a similar manner to what is alleged to be going on in Texas. Should their kids have been taken away? Was it ok for them because that was a long time ago?
Comment by Jeremy Manning — April 18, 2008 @ 10:59 am
Jer,
How can you even say, “What if our Church changed its policy on polygamy…”? The very reason we don’t is because we, as a Church, follow the laws of this land. I would not try to draw any comparisons, especially since were not there. However when I put myself in their shoes I get your point and I agree with you. When I speed I expect the cops to give me a ticket at any given time, in which I am caught. If I, as a grown man, had fathered a child through a teenage girl, I would expect the government to come in and take action against me at any time. On the other hand, I can imagine if my neighbors were doing the fathering yet I had not, I would be shocked and appalled if the government tried to take away my children. Frankly I would be willing to fight to the last breath of my life to defend to my family from being seized and taken by the government. It is flat out wrong for the government to take children from homes where no abuse has occurred.
Cody,
Unfortunately for some, and fortunately for others, due process must be given in any case of law. If you believe I am breaking the law find the evidence against me to prove it. Innocent until proven guilty! If the government can take down a whole group of people because you have some evidence against a few than why not take down every single group in the land because no group is without its whack jobs! Why doesn’t the Government now proceed to take custody of every child belonging to the Catholic Church because a priest at some point may abuse them? It’s a flawed logic; the Government needs to find a different way to bag the guilty.
Comment by Dignin — April 18, 2008 @ 1:46 pm
I understand your points, but you could profit by stepping back from the parental point of view and looking at the situation from a children’s rights point of view. If you are familiar with how child services and rights works in this country, (as well it should), and how most abusive adults lie and threaten and many abuses occur without knowledge or consent of the child’s law abiding parents.
How about this example. Let’s say you found out that your cousin Joe was molesting numerous little girls and telling them to tell nobody about it or else. Would you then relinquish your daughter to be submitted for questioning?
If you were in cahoots with Joe letting him molest your children, you would not.
So where is the line drawn? I understand your arguments, but here is my question: Do the rights of the parents supersede the rights of the children?
Sad if you answer yes. Sad indeed.
Also, beware comparing polygamy of earlier years in the LDS church with these men. All teenage girls in the US at the time married at much younger ages back then.
Comment by cody — April 19, 2008 @ 12:02 am
…what is happening here that I agree with is that child services is treating this group as one big family. Because that is how they live, believe and deceive. They work together to protect and neglect. Would you marry your daughter to your brother at 13 years? Would you relinquish her rights to happiness to your brother’s sexual ego? Would you sit around and watch this happen among your neighbors and say nothing, even if you weren’t a participant? If so, you are guilty and have relinquished your parental rights to a degree. I don’t think you would. THAT is the difference with this group.
If you knowingly live in a drug house, but don’t do drugs, should they still take your kids away from you? Parenting includes protecting your children from harmful and abusive environments. Neglect is the lack of this action. Kids are taken from drug homes every day, sometimes from parents who don’t do drugs. Is this incorrect?
DCFS always removes children for safety/questioning when they live in a home or family environment where there is evidence of endangerment. This just happens to be one big group of adults behaving as such a family behind locked gates and guarded fences.
You cannot argue that all of these children are not in some degree danger given the history of this group as a whole.
Comment by cody — April 19, 2008 @ 12:23 am
Furthermore, testimonies such as the last 30 seconds of this video show the gravity of the abusiveness of the situation.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2008/04/18/ng.polygamy.crime.cnn
Comment by cody — April 19, 2008 @ 2:47 am
Cody,
I had not thought of it this way “..what is happening here that I agree with is that child services is treating this group as one big family. Because that is how they live, believe and deceive. They work together to protect and neglect.” When I think if it like that I understand and agree with what you are saying, but does is it legal to take all the children of a large extended family because one cousin Joe is molesting?
Also if cousin Joe were molesting girls in my family I would definitely want me daughters and even boys to be questioned however I would not want to give up custody and force them to leave their mother to get that questioning.
I can see both sides to this argument, what a tricky situation!
Comment by Dignin — April 21, 2008 @ 10:03 am
Your normal instincts were the correct ones–Lonsberry is wrong again.
There exists no right of parents to abuse their children. Children are not property. It is the state’s clear role to protect its citizens, and that includes its children.
I think rape is something children should be protected from, don’t you?
Its understandable that people would be nervous about such a massive display of state power, but let’s put our emotions back where they belong and consider this rationally–its an unprecedented example of flagrant flaunting of human rights on an institutional level. Big crime requires big police action.
Furthermore, the removal of the children; fifty more that Lonsberry’s count because many young girls lied about their age to hide the fact of their underaged pregnancy from state officials; is still subject to due process.
Judging from Vanity Fair’s willingness to produce child porn for public consumption, perhaps the real objection by left-leaners is that they actually like the idea of sex with very young girls.
Comment by Mick Stockinger — April 28, 2008 @ 11:46 am
Unfortunately I find myself agreeing with you guys now that more information is available. The fact that more than half of the teenage girls taken by the state can be shown to have delivered babies pretty much seals the deal. Texas did the right thing.
Mick’s off hand comment about “left-leaners” and their attraction to young girls is easily countered by the tendency of Republican politicians to be pederasts and homosexual airport bathroom swingers. His on-going quest to assert that his political allies represent moral purity in the fight against the morally evil liberals is as foolish as it is pointless.
Comment by Jeremy Manning — April 29, 2008 @ 10:45 am
Jeremy, I must ardently disagree with what sounds like “ends justifies the means” logic. That claim is to say that ignoring due process and operating on flimsy evidence is acceptable so long as they actually find a crime to be prosecuted. We certainly know that there are crimes being committed within these groups, but we cannot put ourselves above the law in an attempt to correct it.
Comment by Jesse Harris — April 29, 2008 @ 11:19 am
Is responding to a perceived abusive threat of a child without first having evidence ignoring due process? I certainly hope not.
Go to the DCFS website for any state and you will see why everywhere in this country, the rules differ when applied to children, because they have no legal voice or recourse of action. This is where the state has the right and obligation to step in and adjudicate the situation.
There is no ‘means’ or ‘ends’ argument here. The state of Texas acted accordingly in investigating the abusive threat of a child. Once upon the scene, judgement takes place. Any citizen without a voice is given one through the means of a judge and a court who act on behalf of the child according to the dictates of common law.
According to that common law, every child in that compound was in an intolerant abusive environment.
The FLDS lawyers haven’t a leg to stand on. That’s why you now see them grasping at straws.
Comment by cody — April 29, 2008 @ 2:16 pm
I haven’t been hitting on all cylinders lately due to recent family issues.
Jesse is right that my comment represented an acceptance of the fallacy that it is ok for the government to act inappropriately as long as wrong-doing is found and dealt with. I didn’t intend to convey that thought but did in the comment. Texas did not do the right thing.
Still, something needs to be done. This issue involves a closed society of men forcing themselves on young girls through use of physical intimidation and brain washing. It is hard not to be glad to see that these children are now being made safe from such obvious harm even when the process being used to make them safe is so clearly unjust.
The argument that it is ok for government to take people’s kids away without presenting real evidence of an immediate threat to the children is an argument in favor of gross tyranny. The idea that parental teachings contrary to societal mores are a legitimate basis for termination of parental rights is absurd. The vast majority of children taken by the state of Texas have not been shown to have been in any immediate danger of physical or sexual abuse. They should be returned and the state of Texas should be prosecuting the men responsible for these abusive practices instead of the innocent children.
Utah’s prosecution of Warren Jeffs was a good start.
Comment by Jeremy Manning — April 29, 2008 @ 6:02 pm