Yearning for Zion, FLDS trial begins.

[Dancing David]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091029/ap_on_re_us/us_polygamist_trial


Assistant Attorney General Eric Nichols said Jessop was 33 when he had sex a 16-year-old girl, who later gave birth to a daughter. Under Texas law, generally, no one under 17 can consent to sex with adult. Nichols did not discuss the relationship between the two in his opening statement, but prosecutors have said in court documents the teen is one of Jessop's nine wives. Jessop has also been indicted on a bigamy charge that will be tried later.



Defense attorney Mark Stevens said prosecutors would not be able to show evidence of a crime occurring in Texas, and he urged jurors not to be distracted by the alleged polygamy or the religious beliefs Jessop and the church. Broadcast images of women from the church wearing prairie dresses and distinctive braids were impossible to ignore during the weeklong raid in April 2008.

"We don't try people because of their hairstyles or their clothes. We don't try people because of their religious practices," Stevens said. "We try people based on evidence, facts and proof."



Fearing possible prosecution for underage marriages, Jeffs allegedly advised Jessop not to take the 16 year old to the hospital even though she was struggling for days in child labor. One of Jeffs' daughters allegedly married Jessop at age 15 and is the focus of the separate bigamy indictment.

[Darth Rotor]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091029/ap_on_re_us/us_polygamist_trial

DD, your take on this is ... what? :confused:

[Dancing David]

I can't believe it took this long to come to trial.

ETA: And then at some point to look at what the DCS seizure of all the kids meant in the long run.

[dudalb]

I presume the length was because the prosecution wanted to present a strong a case as possible, since the Defense attorney is going to play the "he is being persecuted for his religon" card bigtime.

[GreNME]

I presume the length was because the prosecution wanted to present a strong a case as possible, since the Defense attorney is going to play the "he is being persecuted for his religon" card bigtime.

You mean "has been playing" the religious persecution card. Not only that, but I can recall even some regular LDS getting all snippy when discussing it, implying that if it weren't for them being FLDS that it wouldn't have been a big story.

[Dancing David]

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0WTTks_rfRK2icA6R_QtDMD;_ylu=X3oDMTBjdmNoOTV jBHBvcwMyBHNlYwNzcg--/SIG=1276pb8sp/EXP=1257635519/**http%3a//www.sltrib.com/news/ci_13723262%3fsource=rss

Convicted.

Eldorado, Texas » A Schleicher County jury took about two hours to find a polygamous sect member guilty of sexually assaulting a 16-year-old girl in 2004.

[tyr_13]

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0WTTks_rfRK2icA6R_QtDMD;_ylu=X3oDMTBjdmNoOTV jBHBvcwMyBHNlYwNzcg--/SIG=1276pb8sp/EXP=1257635519/**http%3a//www.sltrib.com/news/ci_13723262%3fsource=rss

Convicted.

Sweet. 'Religious belief' isn't a license to break the law.

[Eyeron]

Bigamy is a great example of how morality can be legislated and that moral reason is that it attacks the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman only. And that of course is from religious influence as well. The usual arguments, in that it can hurt children, can also be used to make marriage illegal. There are a lot of cases of child abuse from married couples, including molestation. So if child endangerment is a ground for making bigamy illegal, why can't the same standards be applied to standard marriage (as in one man and one woman)?

I also don't understand why marriage is considered so sacred. I know the religious reasons for it, and I don't agree with it, but is marriage really a value in society considering nearly fifty percent of all marriages end in failure?

[tyr_13]

Bigamy is a great example of how morality can be legislated and that moral reason is that it attacks the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman only. And that of course is from religious influence as well. The usual arguments, in that it can hurt children, can also be used to make marriage illegal. There are a lot of cases of child abuse from married couples, including molestation. So if child endangerment is a ground for making bigamy illegal, why can't the same standards be applied to standard marriage (as in one man and one woman)?

I also don't understand why marriage is considered so sacred. I know the religious reasons for it, and I don't agree with it, but is marriage really a value in society considering nearly fifty percent of all marriages end in failure?

Case was about sexual assault and child abuse. Bigamy was at best tertiary.

[Dancing David]

Bigamy is a great example of how morality can be legislated and that moral reason is that it attacks the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman only. And that of course is from religious influence as well. The usual arguments, in that it can hurt children, can also be used to make marriage illegal. There are a lot of cases of child abuse from married couples, including molestation. So if child endangerment is a ground for making bigamy illegal, why can't the same standards be applied to standard marriage (as in one man and one woman)?

I also don't understand why marriage is considered so sacred. I know the religious reasons for it, and I don't agree with it, but is marriage really a value in society considering nearly fifty percent of all marriages end in failure?

That was out of left field. :)

Jessup was charged with having sex with an under age minor, unable to give consent.

[Eyeron]

My mind is a plethora of chaos. i'm going very little sleep right now. However, I'm sure bigamy will be used against him as well.

However, there is one point I'd like to ask about.

'Religious belief' isn't a license to break the law.

So would you accept the use of law to force religious parents who have ill children to bring the children to a hospital or bring them medical attention even if they object due to religious beliefs?

[RandFan]

So would you accept the use of law to force religious parents who have ill children to bring the children to a hospital or bring them medical attention even if they object due to religious beliefs?Damn straight!

Neglecting children to the point of death is monstrous. Doing it in the name of religion doesn't help anything.

Child Fatalities From Religion-motivated Medical Neglect (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/101/4/625)

VICTIMS OF RELIGION-BASED MEDICAL NEGLECT (http://www.google.com/search?q=religious+child+neglect&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=)

Please note than in many of these cases the children suffer horribly. They are in pain and or severe discomfort (also known as torturing children for god). What's so damn maddening is that it is simply unnecessary. If a child breaks it's leg and the bone protrudes no one bends down to pray and let the child die. But if a child is diabetic then oh no, that's the providence of god.

Oh please, lock such a-holes up. If there was a god it would want us to use the brains we have to solve medical problems. Duh!

Sorry but you've touched a nerve. So often religion represents the most arrogant and ignorant of our instincts. Superstition. Idiocy. Grow the **** up people.

Bastards. :mad:

[Dancing David]

My mind is a plethora of chaos. i'm going very little sleep right now. However, I'm sure bigamy will be used against him as well.

seperate case.

However, there is one point I'd like to ask about.



So would you accept the use of law to force religious parents who have ill children to bring the children to a hospital or bring them medical attention even if they object due to religious beliefs?

If the children are at risk of serious harm yes.

Why would you over turn CAPTA/ANCARA?

[tyr_13]

So would you accept the use of law to force religious parents who have ill children to bring the children to a hospital or bring them medical attention even if they object due to religious beliefs?

Yes I would accept such a law. The parents cannot force such choices onto anyone else, even a child, and the child cannot be old enough to make informed consent, or dissent in this case.

I point to the huge medical dept of the local Amish due to their children needing medical treatment and ask why you think that is?

There was already a case like this, it made big news, the child was ordered to treatment.

[Ryokan]

So would you accept the use of law to force religious parents who have ill children to bring the children to a hospital or bring them medical attention even if they object due to religious beliefs?

In a hearbeat.

[Eyeron]

Why would you over turn CAPTA/ANCARA?

Strawman.

[Dancing David]

Strawman.

Excuse me but



We are discussing the use of police force to take children into custody after the allegation of child abuse and you say that CAPTA/ANCARA is a strawman!

Your questions was

So would you accept the use of law to force religious parents who have ill children to bring the children to a hospital or bring them medical attention even if they object due to religious beliefs?

And guess what law covers that hmmmm?


ETA:
Now granted the question should have had a comma in it:

Why, would you overturn CAPTA/ANCARA ?

As in: Why? Would you overturn CAPTA/ANCARA?