E
EmperorNapoleon
Guest
Interestingly enough; the guy who took the report and to whom Mr. Duggar was sent for a “stern talk” is now serving a 56 year prison sentence for possession of child pornography.
The Duggars Respond to Reports That Josh Duggar Was Accused of Child Molestation
- Status
H
Havard
Guest
Agreed.
G
Galnextdoor
Guest
Actually, that is not true. The report that all the news is based on was taken by two different officers three and a half years later. One of the officers was a woman affiliated with social services.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
H
HB11
Guest
:sad_yes:I think it should have been taken care of in a better way but its done. I feel for the whole family who are now out there for all the vipers to bite at. I will pray for them and email them to let them know it. These things tear your heart apart when you hear about them.I am a fan of the show and was very upset when I came online today to see it. My husband called me from work to tell me it was on the news. I will also pray for all of us here that had similar things happen to them . God Bless.
Suudy
Active member
No more than any other definition of vandal, thief, thug, etc. If one committed an act of vandalism, theft, battery, etc, and didn’t do it again for 13 years, would we still apply the same label? And if they did any of those at 14 years of age? Recovery is not doing it again. And it seems that JD didn’t commit any such acts since then. So, has he recovered? How long do we have to wait to find out?
No, it is not. Let me quote it for you:
Where did Colorad007 say he/she would rather have a molester at his/her house than where pornography is used?
Even though JD did molest his sisters, is he STILL a molester? THAT is the point. Would you rather have someone, at age 14, who committed an act of molestation 13 years ago or someone who currently has a stash of pornography.
G
gracepoole
Guest
I also felt like it was a punch to the gut when I heard about it. The entire thing is so tragic and tragically awful.
G
gracepoole
Guest
All I can do is repeat that your understanding of “recovery” from being a molester is unique. And frankly not in line with what typically happens in such cases. I have no idea whether Josh is still a molester. But I can say that the chances of repeat occurrences without intensive therapy are high. Sexually predatory behavior isn’t the same as being a vandal, thief, thug, etc. The recidivism rates are quite different. Given that he apparently never received any therapy would I want my children around him? Hell no. Would I want my children around his parents, who seemingly never pursued counseling for him? Hell no. It seems the entire family viewed this as some sort of teenage shenanigans. And perhaps it might have been viewed that way were the majority of his victims his non-participatory sisters. Again, that crosses a very different line.
H
Havard
Guest
The question is does he still have a proclivity to molest.
Consider for a moment alcohol abuse. Not everyone who abuses alcohol is an alcoholic. But everyone will stipulate that you can be sober for decades, and still be an alcoholic. And any sober alcoholic will tell you that it’s better to be sober and aware you’re an alcoholic than sober and not.
Which is why I think Josh Duggar should submit to thorough evaluation by experts.
G
Galnextdoor
Guest
It was not a training center, which would be different from a counseling ministry. It was not a camp. I believe that they might have been friends with the person who ran the place.
Did you read what I wrote above about Christian counselors in Arkansas? People often confuse Christian counselors with real mental health professionals.
The Duggars are not highly educated people and their church counseled them against sending him to a secular mental health facility.
I believe Jim Bob Duggar when he said he thought it was the legal thing to do. He said he thought his son was going to received counseling and hard labor. He stated that the Christian counseling ministry shared the same building as a police department. He was the one who made the arrangements.
He took Josh to the State Troopers office. He told the State Trooper what happened. Just because the State Trooper turned out to be a creep and didn’t pursue it, doesn’t mean that the Duggars didn’t try to do the right thing.
Actually the only person who realized that Josh did anything inappropriate was Josh. The others did not realize he deliberately touched them. Accept for the one girl who was informed that Josh had been inappropriately touching them through their clothes, no one realized that he had deliberately touched them. They thought it was an accident. What he did was still reprehensible, but I think the Duggars handled it the best way they knew how.
The girls reported that he never touched them again after he came back.
Time will tell if Josh was a 13 year old who made some stupid mistakes because he was curious about the female anatomy and didn’t know how to deal with it or rather he is a sick pervert.
Either way, I don’t think this should have been released to the media, because he was 13 years old when it happened.
Suudy
Active member
Indeed. Which has been one of my main points. Some think he will forever have that proclivity. Apparently 13 years isn’t enough to demonstrate that if there is any proclivity at all, it isn’t significant.
For the first part, I agree. But the latter, I don’t. Why is the particular sin of molestation one that should bear forever because of some incidences at 14? When I was 16 I was getting drunk for the fun of it (with the same vandal guy I mentioned earlier). But that didn’t carry the burden of an alcoholic my entire life. And it didn’t even carry with him (he’s actually a decent guy now–well at least according to the folk I chat with that know him as well; I haven’t actually talked with him). I don’t think what he did should carry a lifetime burden, especially since he hasn’t demonstrated any proclivity to commit the crim eagain.
After 13 years? Really? His 13 years of “sobriety” aren’t enough?
And what if they say he’s fine? Would that really satisfy people? Do you think the critics of the FRC would let it go (or even some of the posters here)?
Suudy
Active member
Exactly. The only reason this is news is because of people who wanted to hurt the Duggars and FRC.
J
josie_L
Guest
I think so too (and how they got a hold of the info to begin with seems odd, i.e., aren’t minors protected from having such records divulged).
F
Faith1960
Guest
I’d read a rumor about this a year or two ago, didn’t know if it was true or not. With that number of young people living in the same house, sheltered like that, the incest part doesn’t surprise me.
G
Galnextdoor
Guest
He was never charged with a crime. His sisters said he never touched them again after he returned from the Christian counseling ministry place. When the report was taken, the one little girl that he touched had to be told by her sister what he had done. She said that she thought he was simply pointing out the hole in the seat of her jeans and had forgotten it. He does not work with children. He was 13 years old when this happened. He was the one who informed them that he had touched them. Perhaps he was an overly scrupulous child?
Why should he be evaluated by experts? Who do you feel should monitor him and discern whether he deserves forgiveness? Who do you feel has the right to tell him whether he can continue to live a typical life?
Unless he has done this to other people, I think that his juvenile record should never have been released to the public.
E
EmperorNapoleon
Guest
Just to be clear; he wasn’t charged with a crime because the report was allowed to gather dust until the statute of limitations had passed.
F
Faith1960
Guest
Sometimes the chaperones were younger kids.
T
ToeInTheWater
Guest
I find it very telling that you compare sexual abuse of girls with crimes against property such as vandalism, or alcohol abuse, which is technically not a crime at all.
I think that putting children at risk of child molestation is a much more serious issue than putting property at risk of being damaged. If a vandal is “sober” for 13 years then re-offends, then what is at risk? Property. If a sexual abuser is “sober” for 13 years then re-offends, then what is at risk? The psychological development of an innocent child.
That, I think, is why many people would find it difficult to trust those with a history of sexual abuse, especially of young children, to not re-offend, as opposed with those with a history of other crimes. There is much more at stake if we are wrong.
G
Galnextdoor
Guest
So the article implies. If you read the police report, all the girls accept one had no idea he deliberately touched them. He was the one who told them that he deliberately touch them. The police only had his word that he did it. Accept the one girl, who may have interpreted an accidental touching as deliberate, the only evidence was Josh himself. What if he was an overly scrupulous 13 year old?
L
LongingSoul
Guest
The real problem that he has and will always have to face is that what he did which was to sexually abuse his own siblings… is well known to have a pathological component. If he had been a teenage bully or thief or even a skirt chaser in the making… those things can be more easily put down to teenage struggles associated with hormones and things. To cross the boundary of serious taboo into the sexual assault of younger children who are your siblings… takes a severe disconnect in the personality in some way.
There may be reasons related to the family life that pushed him that far. Perhaps being the golden haired boy, he had a narcissistic streak nurtured in him? Normal people have a clear boundary regarding this sort of thing from a very early age.
20 months after the police were notified, he was married with a daughter on the way. I would think that the state may at least have cause for a quick word with the wife and make sure all is well regarding the childrens welfare.
It is that pathological element in what he did that would warrant much more attention to reform than the normal everyday teenage issues.
- Status