posted
Dagonee, for what it's worth, you've said everything I'd want to say at this point, but with greater eloquence, attention to detail, and legal knowledge than I could. Thanks.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Fortunately, there's no evidence that [violation of due process] has happened here.
There certainly is-- the emergency removal of 400 children is an admission, tacitly, of the fact that due process didn't happen.
Which is a completely different topic from whether or not emergency removal was warranted. The fact remains that we have given the government the power to override our rights through the use of the word "emergency."
Due process was OBVIOUSLY disregarded. Maybe it was warranted.
This is what frustrates me:
quote:The state is accusing the sect of physically and sexually abusing the youngsters and wants to strip their parents of custody and place the children in foster care or put them up for adoption.
The state was able to determine within days, that all four hundred children were being physically and sexually abused? Or is this AP article over-simplifying things?
As much as we've heard about the inefficiencies of CPS, I find it extremely difficult to believe that they could put together enough evidence to warrant this kind of ...well, rendition. I find it much more likely, based on the history of CPS' inefficiencies, that they jumped the gun, became overzealous, and are now scrambling to cover their collective rear ends. Some of the patterns of miscommunication (as pointed up in the linked article) are NOT indicative of an organization that is efficient.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott R, I think what Dagonee is saying (and I agree) is that this is due process; i.e., this is the process established by the relevant laws and supported through many challenges in courts at many different levels. One may want to challenge whether "due process" should be different by challenging those laws, but this is the proper (or "due") procedure under law in warranted cases of suspicions of serious child abuse.
We talked about the timeframe earlier in the thread. I'm going to [post below] to quote myself out of convenience, but not out of any aggressive insinuation that you should have remembered or read it all in careful detail. ( )
I have a great deal of concern about potential abuse of the system and prejudgment (also as noted before), but that is a matter of watching how this plays out very very carefully, not a criticism of the process as currently detailed in the media.
quote:There certainly is-- the emergency removal of 400 children is an admission, tacitly, of the fact that due process didn't happen.
No, it's not. Due process (that is, the process that is due) is a highly tailored concept. It happens pre-event and post-event.
In this case, the process that is due is 1) the existence of reason to believe the children are in danger, 2) temporary removal, and 3) hearings within a certain amount of time. Which of these do you have evidence didn't occur?
Due process is an entirely legal concept. It is based on longstanding legal custom and notice and an opportunity to be heard. Notice and hearing can be given before the event or after the event, depending on the circumstances. Emergencies are well-accepted circumstances for providing post-event due process.
Someone who is arrested isn't given a chance to be heard before that arrest, yet he hasn't been deprived due process because of that arrest. The process due is arraignment or comparable proceeding, then a host of other procedures.
If you are arguing that the due process normally given in emergency custody situations is inadequate, then you have a complaint against the system as a whole. But you're not couching it as a complaint against the system in general, but in the particularities of this situation.
Based on the press accounts, there is no evidence that due process wasn't given here. There is nothing specific about this being 400 children that relates to due process.
quote:Which is a completely different topic from whether or not emergency removal was warranted. The fact remains that we have given the government the power to override our rights through the use of the word "emergency."
Which is a completely different topic from whether or not due process happened - because, whether you like it or not, emergency steps such as this one are part of due process.
quote:Due process was OBVIOUSLY disregarded. Maybe it was warranted.
It's statements like this that make it clear you don't know how this works. If the official action was warranted, then it wasn't a violation of due process. By definition. Due process was certainly not OBVIOUSLY disregarded. There are arguments to be made that the authorities violated due process. There might be good evidence for those arguments. But it's certainly not OBVIOUS. It's not even particularly likely.
quote:The state was able to determine within days, that all four hundred children were being physically and sexually abused?
The key word here is "accused." An accusation is the start of due process, not a deprivation of it. There will be enormous amounts of process given before the decision is actually made. The very next paragraph details one small portion of the process that will be involved here:
quote:"Quite frankly, I'm not sure what we're going to do," Texas District Judge Barbara Walther said after a conference that included three to four dozen attorneys either representing or hoping to represent youngsters.
quote:I find it much more likely, based on the history of CPS' inefficiencies, that they jumped the gun, became overzealous, and are now scrambling to cover their collective rear ends.
Do you have some additional information about the history of this CPS organization's inefficiencies?
quote:Some of the patterns of miscommunication (as pointed up in the linked article) are NOT indicative of an organization that is efficient.
The patterns of miscommunication are based on the accusations of one side of this situation. That's something that will be addressed during due process as well.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I flat out don't believe that the state could determine with any level of certainty or fairness that 401 children need to be put into foster care in a matter of a couple of days. I think we're seeing evidence of prejudice. It troubles me to see this happening, even though I think the state is probably *right* I don't think it's using due process.
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: When one child is deemed likely to have been or of considerable risk to be significantly abused, often the other children in that specific home environment are considered at risk and removed as well. Given the size and intermingling of many families on this particular site, it wouldn't take many children to have been deemed abused to justify removing so many other children until their safety could be established. ***
Not addressing ketchupqueen's critical concern, of course, but as a note as to why so many might be justifiably removed so quickly.
---
Edited to add:
*** This is the standard widespread practice to ensure safety in likely very volatile situations which cannot be resolved quickly without high likelihood of error, and it has been deemed by courts across the country to be both prudent [and] consistent with due process.
Of course, this does mean that children -not- being abused are removed, whether [actually in truth] at risk or not. However, it also saves lives and health while buying time to figure out exactly what is going on.
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: The original number deemed abused or neglected was 18. I can see how they could decide that since they were all living in the same "home environement" they are all at risk. But I am a bit on edge here. So far the mothers who have left are being allowed to stay with the children, and are basically being treated as victims as well. I hope that as many as want support to leave the group are able to get support, help, and training in how to live outside their group (one of my main problems with this group is the lack of education, especially for girls; it's one thing if you're Amish and not expected to make a decision to join the group until you are an adult and have had a chance to see what a different lifestyle is like, but being forced into marriage at 14 without being told there is any other reasonable option is not okay.)
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: I share your concerns, ketchupqueen. I would also be surprised if it were even possible for local authorities to act without at least some prejudgment -- such cases are so highly publicized and so polarizing that prejudice would seem unavoidable. I think it's just human nature, whether that prejudgment ends up being accurate or misleading in the end.
...
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: ...
Due process for removing children from familes (at least in most states) is quite strict. When children are removed from a home in an emergency situation (like this), the act is subject to judicial review usually with in 48 hours or less. In this situation, given the number of children involved it would not surprise me if that time table was stretch. But I don't think the time table itself is evidence that due process isn't being used. I'd be very interested over the next few days to see if the proper judicial reviews are done and the outcome of those reviews.
Despite all the complaining about the state removing children from homes without cause, I think there is far more evidence that the state is too likely to leave children in homes even when there is strong evidence of abuse and neglect.
So many people have an anecdote about a distant friend or relative who had their child taken unjustly. I'm quite skeptical of these stories for several reasons. How many parents would admit they were abusing their child rather than claim unfair treatment? Its easy for most people to believe that a faceless government organization made a big mistake than to believe that their friend or relative was abusing a child.
In the one case I'm familiar with, the whole neighborhood was up in arms over how this baby was taken from her mother. But once I learned the details of the injury the mother claimed was "an accident", I was quite relieved that the child was taken away from her. After a few weeks, the baby was given over to the care of the grandmother with the stipulation that the mother not be left alone with the baby. The mother was required to undergo therapy and training and eventually the child was returned to her care with close over sight from family services.
I consider it an example of the system working and I am told that it is typical of cases where children are put in foster care. In most cases, the goal is to return children to live with their parents.
In this case, the state has a big incentive to return these children to their mothers because of the burden they will put on the foster care system. I think its much more likely that these children will be returned to abusive mothers who can't care from them than that the state will keep them in foster care long after their mothers could have provided them adequate loving homes.
I also added [ketchupqueen's concern and] The Rabbit's full post because of [their] clarity and attention to detail and nuance. The rest of the conversation there is also a good read. Dagonee has been going into great detail on this from the beginning as well.
---
Also, you and I may disagree about whether it's justified/reasonable to take so many children away so quickly, or even whether it is justified in taking one child away in this manner (as in The Rabbit's related story). This may well (read, "is likely" ) be understandable given our backgrounds and experiences; e.g., I have no children but have been involved in many (and some dire) child abuse investigations of others, whereas you have children and thus a much more thorough and grounded idea of a parent's perspective in general.
That's okay. That's life, and that's good. Multiple perspectives should be not only welcomed but sought out -- it's necessary to deal with the justifiable concerns of fairness and our shared civic responsibilities in this matter. I just wanted to acknowledge that as part of the process of clarifying that I wasn't reposting the earlier conversation in order to show you that the matter had been settled. Rather, the earlier discussion may not have been seen or at the forefront of your mind, and I thought it was quite pertinant to the questions raised.
posted
Because...? I have had a problem with feeling like the system isn't zealous enough. Plus I don't harbor any sympathy toward polygamists.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Because...? I have had a problem with feeling like the system isn't zealous enough. Plus I don't harbor any sympathy toward polygamists.
Seconded.
Although it's child abusers and rapists that I lack sympathy for. Don't much care about polygamists.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
I worry that 'emergency removal' is being abused in the name of ideology. I worry that the rights of parents are being stepped on without consideration.
I worry that the public is giving support to a process that is profoundly unhealthy, and that support will be used to expand governmental rights over parental rights. (It's the whole illegitimate surrogate thing again, on a much larger scale)
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is the difference that I was trying to define in the illegitamate surrogate thread. In this case, the state is removing children from a possibly dangerous situation and it is doing so publicly and with various safeguards. Society is watching, there is a process. If you don't like the process, that is another question, at least for me.
What process do you think would create a sufficient balance of parental rights while not letting children be harmed?
If religion weren't part of this equation, would you feel differently? If in a large hippie commune parents were forcing or even allowing adolescent girls to have sex with older men in the commune would you want those men arrested?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is some examples of more abuses from the Texas thugs. Dagonee can argue about "due process" all day, but I don't buy it and perhaps think some civil disobedience might be in order.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
To expand a bit on what Scott has said, I think that the forced removal of these children from their mothers is likely to be *more* harmful than leaving them with their mothers. Even the worst of the allegations have not indicated any prepubescent sexual abuse, so the removal of 5- and 6-year-olds seems unconscionable. Surely the resources can be mustered to provide some sort of monitored housing where the mothers and the children can live together, while keeping the men away.
The women in this sort of environment are likely every bit as abused by the men as the children are and should be, IMO, treated the way we treat siblings of the children in the foster care system. There should be a concerted effort to avoid separation of the children from their mothers.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: What process do you think would create a sufficient balance of parental rights while not letting children be harmed?
I don't honestly know that one can be made. I'm not content to buy into the administration's (any administrations) assurances that everything is being done by the book. I'm not, and will never be, comfortable with state-sponsored intervention in child-parent relationships.
Which should not indicate that I don't see its necessity.
quote: If religion weren't part of this equation, would you feel differently?
No.
quote:If in a large hippie commune parents were forcing or even allowing adolescent girls to have sex with older men in the commune would you want those men arrested?
Absolutely. And I'd want to make sure that the state prosecution of them was thorough and legal and moral, and that they did not overzealously prosecute hippies for their ideaology, but for their actions against children.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: And I'd want to make sure that the state prosecution of them was thorough and legal and moral, and that they did not overzealously prosecute hippies for their ideaology, but for their actions against children.
Is it their ideology that they're being prosecuted for? Or is it their actions that, for lack of a better term, are dubbed cult-like (separatism, secretism, living in a compound)? Or are those actions part of their ideology?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Here is some examples of more abuses from the Texas thugs.
The article is a carefully crafted tissue of misstatements and one sided quotations.
quote: "But I am a die-hard supporter of religious liberties. If they can invade the FLDS temple, they can invade my temple."
Yes, they can. And if there were physical evidence of priests abusing children in a Catholic church, they can invade that church.
quote:They hear echoes of 19th-century salacious - and false - rumors about their Mormon forefathers seducing women and having sex on temple altars. And they worry about government officials having power to decide what’s best for children.
One of the greatest harms caused by the use of such rumors against religious minorities - and they have been used extensively against my own religion - is that it causes people to doubt situations where such abuses actually occur and for people to circle wagons around the abusers. We certainly saw this within the Catholic Church.
The existence of some false accusations of heinous acts do not mean that all such accusations are false.
quote:The women from YFZ Ranch said Monday the girl does not exist and the calls were a hoax. "It is a bogus person. It is a person they made up. That person does not exist on this land," said Joy.
And how on earth do they know this?
quote:Their children, they were told, were no longer theirs. “They told us the state is in charge of them now,” said Donna.
Their children are no longer theirs? What?
The blogger complains about the wording that isn't in quotation marks. This is the mothers' summary of what they were told, and there's no indication those words were ever used by state officials.
quote:Is CPS forgetting somewhere deep in the heart of West Texas someone is at least pretending some due process is scheduled, in the form of legal hearings to be held beginning this week. But, the hubris, arrogance, and callousness of Texas is indeed telling.
No, CPS isn't forgetting this. It's the people saying there hasn't been due process who seem to be forgetting this.
quote:Dagonee can argue about "due process" all day, but I don't buy it and perhaps think some civil disobedience might be in order.
You realize I haven't argued with YOU about it because you haven't bothered to even try to back up your accusations or to even address what due process is.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: None of those actions that you've labeled cult-like are illegal.
Of course not. But perhaps that's why they may be treated more harshly (if they are) in response to the accusation of the girl. As opposed to being treated more harshly because of their religion and/or ideology.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm not, and will never be, comfortable with state-sponsored intervention in child-parent relationships.
I wish I lived in your world, Scott, where parents can be trusted to act more civilized because they are parents. But I get a little chilled when parents start calling for their rights. I guess I've known too many parents who felt their god-given status as parent meant they should have greater lattitude than normal people, rather than more responsibility.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Absolutely. And I'd want to make sure that the state prosecution of them was thorough and legal and moral, and that they did not overzealously prosecute hippies for their ideaology, but for their actions against children. Why do you ask?
Probably because you have continued to swing between making general complaints about the system and specific complaints about this particular incident, which makes it very hard to follow your points.
You haven't pointed to anything other than the sheer numbers involved that demonstrates overzealousness, less than thorough, or illegal or that the parents are being prosecuted for their ideology.
quote:I don't honestly know that one can be made. I'm not content to buy into the administration's (any administrations) assurances that everything is being done by the book. I'm not, and will never be, comfortable with state-sponsored intervention in child-parent relationships.
Which should not indicate that I don't see its necessity.
You indicate that "it" (I presume you mean "state-sponsored intervention in child-parent relationships" is (presumably sometimes) necessary.
Therefore we have to come up with some balance of parental rights while not letting children be harmed. There is no such system that won't produce difficult cases at the margins.
Moreover, an unwillingess to leap to conclusions such as "they have obviously been denied due process" without knowing the bulk of the details or evidence does not mean that anyone has "bought into" assurances that things were/are being done by the book.
Finally, there should be discomfort about taking a child from her parents. That doesn't mean we can't wait to know more before condemning officials.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I don't understand what your point is, Javert.
Not so much a point as a question. Your posts have seemed to indicate that they may be being singled out because of their religion/ideology. I'm merely asking/suggesting that maybe it's their cult-like behavior that is causing any singling-out.
Maybe it makes no difference.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
[Sorry for the inadvertant uberbolding! It's corrected.] [Er, now it is.]
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Even the worst of the allegations have not indicated any prepubescent sexual abuse, so the removal of 5- and 6-year-olds seems unconscionable.
We don't know that we know all of the allegations. Other allegations may have (even "likely") come up in the initial investigation, and there is no compulsion to clarify all of those allegations to the public media at this time.
All allegations that are specified in criminal or civil charges? Yes, absolutely, these are and must be a matter of public record. All allegations that are currently being investigated in a timely fashion to see if there is reason to bring charges based on them? No way. IMU, typically the police and potential prosecutors do not tip all of their hand in the early course of an investigation.
But, see below.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I'm not content to buy into the administration's (any administrations) assurances that everything is being done by the book. I'm not, and will never be, comfortable with state-sponsored intervention in child-parent relationships.
Me, too. That's why I await detailed and specific clarifications (in a timely fashion) with narrowed eyes. But I cannot say at this point that everything obviously isn't being done by the book. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't -- and there must be an accounting.
It's just that the "maybe" is still there, and that means the "obviously" is not yet appropriate. Of course, the "maybe" must be clarified at some timely point.
I'm not certain the "maybe" needs to be clarified in elaborate detail to the public, as there is the confidentiality of the minors to be protected. However, it must be clarified to identified public officials at a remove from the situation itself (not just local police and CPS) in a way that is subject to due process, adequate challenge by legal representation, and opportunity to appeal further up and farther out(even if the court records are sealed). And, I think, even if the public does not get the elaborate details, there must be some general public accounting that addresses these valid, important, and entirely appropriate concerns raised here.
quote:Which should not indicate that I don't see its necessity.
Me, too. Unfortunately. There is no clear cut for this Gordian knot, but we are presented with it nonetheless, and we have to do our best by it. That will and must include accountability.
quote:Recently in the news a 16-year-old became pregnant after living with her older boyfriend - with her parents' blessing. Why isn't anyone arresting the parents of Jamie Lynne Spears?
Because it's not clear that any law was violated in that situation. It's been discussed at length here if you want the details.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
You're a beautiful individual. I'm not sure I agree with you. I want to agree with you, though, because you seem simultaneously intelligent and considerate of differing opinions.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Does anyone have an idea as to why the police haven't named suspects or made any arrests?
Possibly because they're focusing on the CPS actions first. Possibly because they're still getting information.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Here is some examples of more abuses from the Texas thugs. Dagonee can argue about "due process" all day, but I don't buy it and perhaps think some civil disobedience might be in order.
Occasional, perhaps you could point to the specific items in this report that you consider abusive and thuggish. I read that article and unlike either you or the author of the blog I don't see anything that was done which indicated misbehavior on the part of Texas CPS. Can you please be specific about what things CPS did that you feel exceeded reasonable behavior under the circumstances.
In summary the article says the mothers and children we taken on buses to a shelter. After an unspecified period of time, the mother's were asked to leave their children and come into a separate room where they would be given important information. Once the mothers were in the room, they were read a court order saying that their children were being taken into state custody. They were told that they could go to a women's shelter or return to their homes but that they could not stay with the children. Neither the mothers or the young children were happy about that outcome.
I just don't see anything in this description that would be inappropriate assuming that there is sufficient evidence that the children were being abused. If a woman and her child were living with a boyfriend who abused the child, I would expect CPS to take custody of the child until the mother could demonstrate that she was able to provide a safe living environment for the child. I don't see that anything has been done differently here.
All the article really says is that the mother's and children have been traumatized by the events. Of course they have. But that doesn't mean they would not be suffering far more severe trauma if they had been left in the custody of their parents.
The key element in all of this is the assumption that there was sufficient evidence to believe that the children were being abused.
Nothing in any of those articles answers that question. I find it interesting that so many people jump to the conclusion that because the media haven't reported the details of the evidence for abuse that the evidence doesn't exist.
[ April 15, 2008, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Recently in the news a 16-year-old became pregnant after living with her older boyfriend - with her parents' blessing.
Why isn't anyone arresting the parents of Jamie Lynne Spears?
It raised my eyebrows, for sure. But I don't know what the local laws are -- 16 may be the legal age of consent there, and so "abuse," "neglect," and "endangerment" with reference to law and community standards may not even be an issue. Note that is regardless of whether they should be an issue or whether they are a non-legal (and perfectly reasonable) issue -- but if no laws currently applying within the relevant jurisdiction have been violated, then there cannot be criminal prosecution, as there are no grounds for charges. Those charges, in that context, may not exist.
But 16 might not be within the limits of consent for the relevant jurisdiction. As I said, I don't know.
Moreover, though, even in the case that parents are not behaving appropriately with respect to the law, the mission of CPS is not always to separate the children from the parents. It is a matter of reasonable concern of imminent danger to the health and safety of the children that determines the justifiability of temporary removal (and kicks in the process of timely review, as well). It may be that once pregnant, she is considered (roughly speaking) emancipated at that age, and so there may not be "imminent" danger as the statutes would not currently apply to her at this moment in time. The question of prior imminent danger or violations of legal responsibility would be relevant to charges but not necessarily to current removal (as the goal is to keep families together insofar as possible, barring concern about currently imminent dange, which must itself be defined in terms of current law -- see above re: "Those charges, in that context, may not exist.").
Or there may be an injustice in the Spears case, and the prosecutorial machinery may have failed to live up to its responsibility. That would not be relevant to the question of whether the Texas children should have been removed in this way, though.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:It may be that once pregnant, she is considered (roughly speaking) emancipated at that age, and so there may not be "imminent" danger as the statutes would not currently apply to her at this moment in time.
Why wouldn't this apply to the pregnant teenagers on the Texas ranch?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
You're a beautiful individual. I'm not sure I agree with you. I want to agree with you, though, because you seem simultaneously intelligent and considerate of differing opinions.
It is certainly mutual, Scott. I say that without reservation.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jamie Lynn Spear's boyfriend was 19, not in his mid 40's. Most states, for better or worse, see a distinction between the two. It's also not certain that he wasn't a minor when her child was conceived.
Personally, though, I would be fine with Spear's parents being prosecuted.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The key element in all of this is the assumption that there was sufficient evidence to believe that the children were being abused.
Nothing in any of those articles answers that question. I find it interesting that so many people jump to the conclusion that because the media haven't reported the details of the evidence for abuse that the evidence doesn't exist.
I think you hit the nail on the head. It seems to come down to if you trust the authorities are doing what is right and legal or not. The two sides are those who want to wait and see and trust that the authorities are doing everything "by the book." Then there is those like myself who don't believe that is true and think bounds have been overstepped. Since there is little to no proof either way, all we can go on is our beliefs and some legal rhetoric.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It may be that once pregnant, she is considered (roughly speaking) emancipated at that age, and so there may not be "imminent" danger as the statutes would not currently apply to her at this moment in time.
Why wouldn't this apply to the pregnant teenagers on the Texas ranch?
First, different jurisdictions have different laws. She (I think) was residing in Mississippi, and this is Texas. The age of consent from state to state can vary by years -- this is part of the (IMO) appropriate deference to state-by-state variance and justified autonomy. As far as I know, there is not an overarching federal standard on this matter that would supercede local laws.
Second, there may be (and there is indication) other allegations which seemed tenable and needed to be investigated above and beyond the simple fact of pregnancy of a 16-yr-old at this Texas site. I tried to lay out in detail above why we may not be aware of these and why I think it is appropriate that -- at this point -- we may not have been made aware publicly of all such allegations.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The two sides are those who want to wait and see and trust that the authorities are doing everything "by the book." Then there is those like myself who don't believe that is true and think bounds have been overstepped.
There are three possible sides here, not two:
1) Those who think the authorities have acted by the book. 2) Those who don't. 3) Those who think there isn't enough evidence to determine whether the police have acted by the book.
There seems to be a lot of 2 and 3 here, but few 1. There has also been some discussion about whether the book is correct.
quote:Since there is little to no proof either way, all we can go on is our beliefs
The lack of proof could be used to consciously choose to not make an uninformed decision about whether the actions were by the book.
quote: and some legal rhetoric.
It's not legal rhetoric. It's legal analysis. When one talks about whether due process has been violated, one is talking about a legal issue. When one talks about whether fourth amendment rights have been violated, one is talking about a legal issue.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Looks like the age of consent in Mississippi is 16 (male and female) but is 17 (male and female) in Texas, according to my offline sources. I bet this is listed in a state-by-state chart at a reliable site online somewhere.
---
Edited to add: Some states put the legal age of consent at 16, some 17, and many at 18. For many states it is the same age for boys and girls, but for some states the ages differ based on sex.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
I already searched the KKK/Knight's Party official website to address a question elsewhere, and that will tide me over for many years.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Ahhhh, hmmm. From the into paragraph there, "In Missouri, the age is 14 years old with certain circumstances. The spouse/significant other must be 5 years older." That's more detail than my clinical cheat sheet goes into, and I'll modify for my records.
The snippet on Texas law with regards to differential ages of the two involved is also interesting and relevant.
---
Edited to add: There is a nice snippet on applicable federal law as well, not with age of consent per se, but in regards to communication with minors and transportation across state lines in terms of such cases.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I think the two relevant states for Jamie Lynn Spears were California and Louisiana.
I thought she was attending an academy in Mississippi, but I'm no JLS expert, that's for sure.
If Wikipedia is correct, California is 18 (with caveats, and I don't know if those apply here, so it may not be 18 in this particular case). Wikipedia doesn't list Lousiana as far as I can see, but my sheet says 17 (again with caveats that may or may not make this applicable).
By the way, according to my sheet, California applies the age to m/f, m/m, and f/f, but Louisiana applies the age to m/f relationships. I can't tell if there are different laws regarding same sex relationships and age of consent there, or if there is no applicable law, or what have you.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:For Aldridge, his relationship with Spears could easily be viewed as a criminal matter. It differs from state to state. Charges can be brought in any state with sexual relations occurred. Yet, the two states with the most relevance are California (where Spears words) and Louisiana (where Spears lives). In California, it is a misdemeanor to have sex with someone younger than 18 if the offender is less than three years older. Someone more than three years older could be charged with a felony. In Louisiana, where Spears lives, it is a misdemeanor for someone age 17 to 19 to have consensual sex with someone age 15 to 17 if the difference between their ages is more than two years.
According to Wikipedia, Aldridge is slightly less than 2 years older than Jamie, so there seems to be no violation if conception occurred in Louisiana.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what I've read, in both CA and LA it would be at most considered a misdemeanor for an 18 year old to have consensual sex with a 16 year old (aka Spears).
But regardless of the law, I think there is an enormous difference between a 15 to 16 year old having sexual relationships with a boyfriend/girlfriend who is within 2 or three years of their own age and a teenager having sexual relations with some one in their 30s or 40s. The former I consider natural although regrettable (and sinful if that matters to you), the latter I consider perverse and probably evil.
The disparity in power and authority between a teenage girl and a man in his 30s and 40s is so extreme as to call into question the validity of consent. This is even more true within these closed polygamous groups where the pressure the young girls get from their religious leaders, parents and community makes it difficult to believe that these girls truly have any choice in the matters. Even if the threats are never spoken, these young girls know that refusing to enter into these marriage will mean punishments ranging from ostracism to beating to expulsion from their homes to eternal damnation. If saying no isn't an option, what does consent mean?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:From what I've read, in both CA and LA it would be at most considered a misdemeanor for an 18 year old to have consensual sex with a 16 year old (aka Spears).
Based on the likely date of conception, it would be a misdemeanor in California and not a crime in Louisiana (because the difference in age is < 2 years).
quote:But regardless of the law, I think there is an enormous difference between a 15 to 16 year old having sexual relationships with a boyfriend/girlfriend who is within 2 or three years of their own age and a teenager having sexual relations with some one in their 30s or 40s.
This is an important point: there is a qualitative difference in JLS's situation and the allegations at the root of the FLDS situation.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Texas Children's Protective Services spokeswoman Marleigh Meisner said the separation was made Monday after they decided that children are more truthful in interviews about possible abuse if their parents are not around.
How does CPS go about making this kind of decision?
quote:But regardless of the law, I think there is an enormous difference between a 15 to 16 year old having sexual relationships with a boyfriend/girlfriend who is within 2 or three years of their own age and a teenager having sexual relations with some one in their 30s or 40s.
This is an important point: there is a qualitative difference in JLS's situation and the allegations at the root of the FLDS situation.
Yes, absolutely. I did not even try to address this point because things already were so convoluted with what I was addressing, but I agree totally. Thanks, Rabbit.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: How does CPS go about making this kind of decision?
Scott, I have to go do something else, but I know this has been established in the medical and psychology literature, resting (I think) on meta-analyses of compiled case studies that considered a) what procedures were used for interviewing, b) what the children said in those interviews, and c) the eventual judgment of the court when weighing all presented evidence, including but not limited to those children's testimonies.
I believe guidelines have been given in that literature. However, I don't know if that actually is the reason relied on by the CPS in this case (or even if they know about that literature), and I don't have references on hand. I can dig them up, but it would take an effort. Happy to do it later if that is of service to anyone.
---
Edited to add: Such literature of course did (and must) acknowledge the additional trauma to children resulting from being separated from parents and interviewed alone by strangers. It is a matter of weighing the pros and cons here as well, and again, there are no clearcut answers (IMO). However, it is clear that in general, such separation makes a difference in establishing the truth of the matter.
It is, though, never easy or pleasant to do, and there can be lasting harms to be weighed against the benefits.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Unfortunately. There is no clear cut for this Gordian knot, but we are presented with it nonetheless, and we have to do our best by it. That will and must include accountability.
