You sure about that? I've never heard that before. Link?Quote:
Originally Posted by rockgremlin
Printable View
You sure about that? I've never heard that before. Link?Quote:
Originally Posted by rockgremlin
In Utah its rape if the girl is 14. Here is the link
http://www.moraloutrage.net/staticpa....php?page=Utah
Jeffs was not convicted of rape. He was convicted of "rape as an accomplice".... two different things.
And I'll still stick with my original thoughts..... men should not be screwing little 14 y/o girls. Anyone who is or is contributing should be held accountable. All I'm hearing from Crapey is that he thinks its OK to screw children.
:cool2:
That's because you hear what you want to hear. I'm saying, Jeffs shouldn't be convicted of being guilty as an ACCOMPLICE unless the husband (who actually did the deed) is found guilty himself. How can someone be an accomplice to a crime that hasn't even been proven? The evidence isn't beyond a reasonable doubt in this case. Not even close. If Jeffs is guilty, why isn't JD4's mother guilty as well? JD4's testimony placed more blame on her than it did on Jeffs. Or did you not even read her testimony?Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
Besides, you are the guy who is always on here posting about screwing anything that walks, usually women who I guarantee are half your age. Who's supporting child rape, really?
I'm glad they got him for "rape accomplice", but some form of "slavery" charge may have been appropriate.
For Ice, from the DNews:
"My mother was the one who finally showed me that I had no choice,
I thought originally they were even trying him for SODOMY of an underage MALE. :ne_nau:
ooh, broomsticks? Now we're getting kinky....Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
Just glanced at this thread... and it made me wonder.... How do you guys feel about a Mother, who knows that some adult male is having sex with her under age daughter, and allows it. Usually to keep the man around ....being a boyfriend, husband or such?
Is this similar to what Jeffs did? Should she be guilty too?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarpeyBiggs
Ouch! .... He he..... And what is your reply to this one Ice man.
:lol8:
why is the answer no. i don't think it is at all straightforward to come to that conclusion. he is the prophet and it is due to him that 14-year old girls are getting married off so frequently. the frequency of such marriages (and consequently the expected sex associated with such marriages) increased once he became prophet. he is most certainly responsible for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by CarpeyBiggs
Yeah.... you can keep trying to defend it but I ain't buyin' it..... It's all child abuse pure and simple. I also hope they nail mom for the Jeffs rape.
Nevada Police Hunt for man in Explicit Sex Tape w/ Child
I hope they find this guy and torture him for the rest of his natural life.
Here's his photo
http://www.foxnews.com/images/309715...092507_man.jpg
Picture of the missing girl
http://www.foxnews.com/images/309715...92507_girl.jpg
[quote]
LAS VEGAS
I only say no because of the facts in this case that were presented. Like I said, is he a criminal? Probably. Is he an accomplice on rape charges? Probably not, at least not based on the evidence presented.Quote:
Originally Posted by stefan
Remember, it has to be proven BEYOND a reasonable doubt. Of course, based on what I've seen and read from the trial (which is not exhaustive, by any means, I wasn't there) I don't see any evidence that suggests anything actually happened. Sure, there is testimony, but that's it. The prosecution has to PROVE the rape happened. This is her word against his.
Even if they did prove that, they have to PROVE that Jeffs influence could be considered coercion. That is difficult to prove, in my opinion. Does just marrying them and saying "multiply and replenish" mean he coerced them? Or did he actually tell the man to force his wife to have sex with him? And if he did say that, where does that become advice, and when does it become coercion? Lots of gray area in there, methinks. There were many unanswered questions, which is exactly why everyone was so stumped as to what the verdict would be. No one was calling this an open and shut case, because it certainly wasn't.
Anyways, back to the testimonies, the husbands testimony and JD4's testimony are completely at odds. The most striking testimony from JD4 actually implied it was her mother who forced her, not Jeffs. Why isn't the mother on trial as well? Perhaps she'll be tried later too? It all boiled down to her testimony against his, and at some points she actually said that she willingly had sex with him later in the relationship. Just hard to say there is actually proof.
Ironically, it wasn't until after the trial that the husband had charges pressed against him for rape. Wouldn't it seem like the person who actually performed the rape should be tried before we find out who the people are that were accomplices? Kinda strange, if you ask me. And now, the husband will be tried as well, based on testimony he gave. I mean, the guy didn't even refuse to testify, based on the grounds that he may incriminate himself. Doesn't sound like a guy who was trying to hide anything. Contrast that with a girl who got pregnant by another man while they were still married... Granted, that isn't "proof" either, it's just my opinion.
I was also unimpressed with the prosecuting team. The whole stunt with passing out pictures of the girl when she was 14 after the press was told they couldn't even name the girl, let alone distribute pictures of her, seems like they were grasping at straws, like they knew their case was weak.
What's more, the whole timeline of how she came to press charges was erratic. First it was a civil case, then it became a trial case, and yet charges were never filed against the husband..
Not to mention, I just don't really like Mark Shurtleff, and it seems like this has been his number one priority for some time now.
So there's my opinion. Notice, I have no facts either. Just my feelings on the matter. Flame away.
Ice, I'm not defending it. Reread my statements if you need to... I am not condoning any of his actions in any way. I'm simply saying the charges, in this case, just don't fit. I think they should've worked a more solid case against the guy. Jeffs is probably a criminal. But "probably" shouldn't be enough to convict someone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
coercion = persuasion (of an unwilling person) to do something by force or by threat.Quote:
Originally Posted by CarpeyBiggs
using religious rhetoric and directives for salvation i believe could easily be considered coercion.
I could see that, but you still have to prove the rape happened. Generally though, accomplice to rape means someone who actually physically participated in the crime, i.e. holding them down or something. There isn't much precedent of someone being prosecuted as an accomplice by using religious rhetoric as a form of coercion. Not saying it isn't valid, just saying it is new territory.Quote:
Originally Posted by stefan
That said, the rape still has to be proven first though, and I can't see how the actual rapist wasn't even charged yet, but the accomplice is convicted. Doesn't that seem strange?
Here's something to ponder on:
In Utah, sex with a girl younger than 16 is statutory rape. So, do you REALLY believe that she was married at the age of 14, but NEVER had sex with her husband until two years later?
Bullshit. Of course they had sex before she was 16, and that's statutory -- grey area? What grey area?
Jeffs had arranged many underage marriages like this all in the name of religion. How could you NOT see that as an accomplice?
Hey man, no need to cuss at me.Quote:
Originally Posted by rockgremlin
So if you believe that constitutes a rape, then do you believe that the influence he exerted is enough to convict him of his charges? Again, he told them to multiply and replenish the earth. Did he really continue to personally coerce that marriage? From everything I can tell, it was her mother applying the most pressure, not Jeffs. The only thing he did PERSONALLY is not allow them to be divorced. I think it is a stretch to say he was an accomplice. But hey, that's just me. Don't cuss me out for it. Under the general understanding of what an "accomplice to rape" is, I'd say there isn't much previous history of anyone being convicted using similar rhetoric.
Along this same vein, would you also agree that the parents, specifically the mother, should be tried as well? And lastly, do you think the man is guilty of rape as well, the husband? Is there any grey area for the husband? Or should he be in jail too?
No cussing here. I haven't unloaded any f-bombs yet. :lol8:
Ya, I definitely think the mother should be tried as an accomplice. No doubt. And the husband should also be tried for statutory -- no question.
So by your definition, I will concede that she was in fact raped, by the definition in Utah law. I've always understood that the age of consent was 14 or older in Utah. Looks like I was wrong on that, considering he was more than three years older, that makes the age of 14 a moot point. So, whether it was consensual or not is irrelevant.
So the rape happened, now, you have to determine what kind of influence Jeffs personally had on the husband. Did Steed and Jeffs meet often? Did they ever meet personally? Have they ever met outside of the wedding? Or was this something that was more of a cultural expectation and unspoken, or did Jeffs specifically tell this couple they needed to start breeding immediately? What were the threats made? What was the extent of his coercion, etc... The list goes on.
Again, judging by the girl's testimony, the influence of Jeffs was minimal on her and her husband. Her mother was the much more significant influence. Perhaps Jeffs was a strong influence on the mother though? Difficult questions to answer in the court of law, because there are very few legal precedents to draw from, and the definitions are subjective. Hence, the gray area.
Also, why was he tried on two counts of the same charges, when there was only one witness? Did I miss something there?
And more gray area... Do you really think the husband should be tried? From what it sounds like you are saying, he should be considered a victim too. Basically, Jeffs coerced him into doing it. He was doing what he thought was right. I think he lacked the intent to commit the crime. I mean heck, the guy could've easily exercised his rights and not testified, and not implicated himself, but he didn't seem to care about that. It appears he wanted to tell the truth. The marriage and resulting consummation wasn't something he chose to do, but was commanded to do. Shouldn't he be given some leniency?
The husband will probably get some leniency for the reasons you have listed. It would've been much worse for him had he fled.
As much as Jeffs, et al. are guilty, I do agree with you that they are trying to establish a precedent here (witch hunt). They've been trying to find a way to prosecute polygamy here in Utah for decades, and this was the perfect opportunity. Will be interesting to see what impact this has if any on the polygamous communities throughout the state.
I hope they eliminate the lifesyle..... I have known many of the young girls from there that would give just about anything to get out of that life style. Hilldale - Colorado City is right by me. Also the baby issue... the inbreeding... it's horrible. You should see some of these babies... their developement is quite slow.
Let's hope that a better lifestyle for children and women of that community comes out of all this. Leaders need to pay... after all .... life in Pligville is pretty much dictated to the young people by the ones with the power. That being Jeff's (for one)... he needs to be hunted, removed and it needs to be done in the most public way possible!