(CW: CSA) Josh & Anna 48: "Happy New Year to You [,Josh]... In Jail!"

[Alisamer]

11 hours ago, SorenaJ said:

Thank you for your explanation. I was not aware that it was cheaper to rehabilitate drug/alcohol users than imprison them, because I didn’t even consider it might be.

I would think rehab would be not only cheaper in the long run, but better for society as well. How is imprisoning them going to help anything at all? It should in theory keep them sober, but we know that drugs find their way into prisons all the time. They can find ways to brew alcohol. Some will come out of prison the same as they went in. Some will be worse. Many will end up there again, like a revolving door. And a long-term alcoholic or drug abuser NEEDS help to come off the drugs - it's not like they just stop taking them and sober up and all is fine. They'll be super sick, in different ways depending on the substance, for days to weeks. It really is an illness, and needs to be treated as one, IMO. 

I get how it seems unfair to spend money on people with anti-social behaviors instead of children and the elderly, but it shouldn't be an either/or situation. Children and the elderly need services. People with mental health issues need services - and many if not most people in prison have those same issues. People with addictions need treatment. 

I think while it's more money upfront, in the long run it would be better to solve the problems causing people to turn to criminal behavior (like poverty and lack of opportunity) and treat the mental health and addiction issues that lead to those behaviors as well. In an ideal world, doing those things would leave only those too dangerous to be out in society still in prison. 

It's not an ideal world, clearly. But just sticking people in a prison for a few years then dumping them back out into the same situation that got them there in the first place doesn't work either.

[EmCatlyn]

32 minutes ago, Beermeet said:

I definitely don't have experience but I looked it up. 

https://www.psychologicalaffiliates.com/the-objectives-of-psychosexual-evaluations

Thanks for posting.  Two things that struck me are that the evaluation may include interviews with family and members of the community and that while they say that the results are confidential if the evaluation was requested by the defense, it does not say the same about if the evaluation is requested by the state for sentencing.

On the subject of whether Josh will be candid and confess, he just might because he may confuse this with the confession that leads to forgiveness in his world.  Or he may just like the attention.  However, if he gets the idea that he should conceal his proclivities to get a shorter sentence he may try to do so, at the very least withholding information or minimizing facts.

It should not be a problem for a trained professional to detect when Josh is not being candid, especially since he will have been through some standard evaluations before he gets to the “one on one” interview.  Most personality-type tests have ways to determine if a subject is lying and/or deluding himself.

[Beermeet]

On 12/27/2021 at 10:10 AM, HerNameIsBuffy said:

I'd agree 100% except for me it's more than beating women, but for domestic violence in general.  Also animal cruelty.  IANAL so don't know how to word it, but we need to be able to legally differentiate those who prey upon the vulnerable.  

The way we deal with non-violent crimes now creates more violent offenders...we need a better solution.  And we need to take addiction seriously, those in for non-violent personal use need treatment.

I was thinking about this, the animal abusers.  They are definitely a danger to society; anyone who can hurt animals like that can hurt humans.  I saw a show that was like Cops but for animals.  Good Lord, the only time I wanted to see an authority beat an offender.  Like, go for it.  Those people are doing amazing work, it must be so hard on them.  

Just to add on:  I agree about the general domestic violence but I do fear women's concerns and voices will get lost in general rhetoric.  We have different needs and vulnerability overall.  Violence is violence and it should be also specifically mentioned for men, as should violence against children and elders, our most vulnerable.  There are different levels of murder, so, it can be done.  They just don't want to.  

1 hour ago, EmCatlyn said:

Thanks for posting.  Two things that struck me are that the evaluation may include interviews with family and members of the community and that while they say that the results are confidential if the evaluation was requested by the defense, it does not say the same about if the evaluation is requested by the state for sentencing.

On the subject of whether Josh will be candid and confess, he just might because he may confuse this with the confession that leads to forgiveness in his world.  Or he may just like the attention.  However, if he gets the idea that he should conceal his proclivities to get a shorter sentence he may try to do so, at the very least withholding information or minimizing facts.

It should not be a problem for a trained professional to detect when Josh is not being candid, especially since he will have been through some standard evaluations before he gets to the “one on one” interview.  Most personality-type tests have ways to determine if a subject is lying and/or deluding himself.

So much is out in the open now with him.  He's cooperative by nature and his upbringing.  He's a sneak though, he's not loud about his proclivities irl.  He's used to people down playing his crimes.  He follows rules and procedures well as seen in his booking video.  He will be forced to face himself with these questions and tests. He probably thinks he can beat it. 

It will be interesting,  not sure how it will go!  

[noseybutt]

7 hours ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

One of the YouTube lawyers mentioned Josh will be undergoing a psycho-sexual examination prior to sentencing and that this will be used, in part, to determine his SO treatment plan.  They mentioned this will be very uncomfortable for him.  

Does anyone know what this entails?  If he is forthright can what he says in this be used against him in his appeal?  Of course the doctor examining him will have experience working with involuntary clients who have every reason to lie, but will it be easy for Josh to fool them if he's careful?  Even if he weren't a predator he's not charismatic or charming. but Idk how this works.  

Does anyone have experience with this?

Yes. I have done these evaluations, sometimes at the request of the court and sometimes at the request of the defense.

Generally I use formal risk assessment instruments. Ideally, one of the instruments will be actuarial (plug in the factors and get a number) and one of the instruments will use structured professional judgement (a list of 20 or so factors known to correlate with offending). It's tricky with CSAM cases because measures are not as developed as they are for hands-on offending. The reason being, there needs to be more research and CSAM in its present form is relatively "new." (Or, rather, ease of access to it is new.)

To do a formal risk assessment, I gather background information for all the legal documents including law enforcement reports, probation reports, testimony, etc. I generally do NOT contact known victims of hands-on offending and, in general, I would be prohibited from contacting the victims if hired by the defense. But I would have their statements. I also look at medical, educational, and job records---if available. Sometimes I interview family members of the defendant--say the spouse--if there are minor children in the home.

Interviewing the defendant can be time consuming because it's their entire sexual history--not just behaviors, but when did they learn about sex, attitudes, thoughts, exposure, concealment, etc. 

All that information is then used for the risk assessment measures. Typically we categorize as high, medium, or low risk. It's not really a risk of reoffending in the sense that I have a crystal ball. Rather, it gives an indication of need for containment and what might help rehabilitation. For example, some CSAM offenders have high anxiety and the CSAM is about reducing their anxiety (among other things). It's logical in those scenarios to treat the anxiety.

As far as defendants not being truthful. Yeah, that's the norm. The information I am after is sensitive and embarrassing and all the things. I spend an outrageous amount of time building rapport and hanging on their every world like they are the most interesting person in the world. (Note: They are not. But the job, overall, is very interesting to me provided sex offender evaluations are only one part of it.) Many of these guys are very lonely after weeks or months of incarceration and some of them do open up. I have occasionally heard confessions for other crimes. It's not uncommon that I have to make a call to CPS after, depending on what I am told and suspect.

All that goes into a report to be used at sentencing. 

Generally, the prisons will also do their own evaluation to figure out which, if any, treatment programs the prisoner might qualify for. I give only generic recommendations while the prison psychologists will be very specific.

[noseybutt]

3 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

Thanks for posting.  Two things that struck me are that the evaluation may include interviews with family and members of the community and that while they say that the results are confidential if the evaluation was requested by the defense, it does not say the same about if the evaluation is requested by the state for sentencing.

On the subject of whether Josh will be candid and confess, he just might because he may confuse this with the confession that leads to forgiveness in his world.  Or he may just like the attention.  However, if he gets the idea that he should conceal his proclivities to get a shorter sentence he may try to do so, at the very least withholding information or minimizing facts.

It should not be a problem for a trained professional to detect when Josh is not being candid, especially since he will have been through some standard evaluations before he gets to the “one on one” interview.  Most personality-type tests have ways to determine if a subject is lying and/or deluding himself.

Forensic psychological reports are never really confidential.

If I am hired by the court, then all sides (DA, defense, judge) will get a copy. If I am hired by the defense, then the report goes to the attorney and the attorney then decides whether to use it or not. If the attorney wants to use it, then it gets released to all sides. Every so often an attorney will choose to bury one of my reports but that doesn't happen often. And when it does: meh. Usually in the those instances there are few or no mitigating circumstances and the DA will make that obvious.

I don't expect sex offenders to confess or express remorse especially pre-sentencing. I mean, some do and some don't. It doesn't directly factor into the risk assessment. I suppose it can indirectly factor into risk assessment because part of our measures generally include an assessment for psychopathy and part of psychopathy is lack of remorse. But the remorse or lack thereof doesn't have to be about the immediate offense. Somebody remorseful will generally have a track record of feeling bad about mistakes and apologizing in other aspects of their life. Somebody without remorse--generally they lack that all over the place. For example, they get arrested for a DUI and complain about the inconvenience. Or, they beat up a girlfriend and tell me that they felt provoked. You get the picture. 

Yes, our objective personality tests do have validity scales that give us an idea of how the person is presenting: defensive, malingering, lying, etc. But I don't always use objective personality tests for these kinds of evaluations. It just depends. Most of our formal risk assessment measurements don't necessarily require objective personality tests. I might throw one in if I suspect a mental illness or personality disorder. But most CSAM defendants do not have serious mental illness by traditional definitions. Maybe some anxiety. Maybe some psychopathy. Maybe pedophilia. But again, we don't necessarily need an objective peronsality test to tell us that.

[noseybutt]

2 hours ago, Beermeet said:

 

So much is out in the open now with him.  He's cooperative by nature and his upbringing.  He's a sneak though, he's not loud about his proclivities irl.  He's used to people down playing his crimes.  He follows rules and procedures well as seen in his booking video.  He will be forced to face himself with these questions and tests. He probably thinks he can beat it. 

 

Yes, some people do come in with the attitude that they will try and "beat" whatever is asked of them. The thing is, there is not really anything to "beat." Much of the information for a risk assessment will come from collateral information--he can deny all he wants but he has a conviction for CSAM and sworn testimony that indicates he was a juvenile hands-on offender. Nothing he says can change that.

If he were to open up and tell a story that seems even moderately plausible or consistent with collateral information, it would be in his favor. But not very much. Federal sentencing guidelines do not really have a category for: I thought I could beat the charges so I refused a plea but now that I am guilty I would like to express the remorse that magically was missing a few months ago. 

That said, I expect on most formal risk assessment measures that he will NOT be in the high-risk category. I say that because he doesn't have other arrests, no prior convictions, known victims seem to be female (dontgetmegoing on the sexism with male victims scoring higher), no history of serious mental illness or substance abuse, no history of probation or parole violations, etc. IOW, he looks pretty tame by sex offender standards. But the key here is precisely that: sex offender standards. He is a danger to society, no question. That he's probably not as violent or criminally oriented as some of the others is like bragging about Stage 3 versus Stage 4 cancer. 

[Beermeet]

@noseybutt TY for sharing your expertise and doing such an important job well.  

I figured it's not anything he can beat per say but I so feel like he will go into it with that mindset.  Maybe not though.  

[noseybutt]

2 minutes ago, Beermeet said:

@noseybutt TY for sharing your expertise and doing such an important job well.  

I figured it's not anything he can beat per say but I so feel like he will go into it with that mindset.  Maybe not though.  

Not gonna lie, he would be fascinating to interview.

And, yes, I would expect him to be highly defensive. The ones from extremely religious backgrounds usually are.

More graphic comments below the spoiler:
 

Spoiler

I would be curious to (a) read the full legal file and (b) get the details on his sex life with Anna. Basically, gauge the level of pedophilic attraction. My guess is that he trips pretty high on psychopathy, but the files and interview would be needed to say for certain. Also, how does he make sense of his own behavior? Integrating all that would be super interesting. 

 

[Beermeet]

@noseybutt I assume he would behave differently with a man vs woman.  I suppose many do in whatever way it comes out.   That would probably be challenging for him a little extra though.  How are such things handled?  If he's not cooperative or rude, or whatever due to the sex of the examiner/s.

[noseybutt]

43 minutes ago, Beermeet said:

@noseybutt I assume he would behave differently with a man vs woman.  I suppose many do in whatever way it comes out.   That would probably be challenging for him a little extra though.  How are such things handled?  If he's not cooperative or rude, or whatever due to the sex of the examiner/s.

I am a woman and the transference the offenders have towards me is interesting. The highly religious ones are usually very sexist and will act superior. But, I am middle aged and non-threatening and nurturing and well versed in fundy world and know the lingo (without them having to translate) and have lots of training in how to build rapport. By definition, most are very very lonely by the time I see them (esp with covid isolation and ongoing lockdowns) and they are happy to have a break in their routine and, of course, I am very very interested in their story and, well, most want to be understood in whatever way that looks like to them. So yeah. They talk. Some more than others, of course. But it astonishing to me how much many will disclose. It takes sitting in a cramped and often smelly and gross interview room for hours on end. And moving slowly.  And gently reaffirming their emotional experiences over and over again. And talking about weird sex with the same comfort level and tone of voice that I would use to request a side order of fries. 

It's the least glamorous job ever. 

But, as I said before, it is interesting. Almost without exception, the CSAM offenders are not good with emotional intimacy and they eat it up when they figure out that someone is willing to listen to the full story in a nonjudgmental way. Generally they have spent a lot of time and energy concealing their life and that has its own level of exhaustion.

I don't think I have had a rude or intimidating CSAM offender. Especially if I am hired by their attorney, the attorney will have prepped them to cooperate---otherwise, why spend the money? Even when hired by the court, they are still prepped by the isolation and loneliness.

The challenging ones are the sex offenders who are actively psychotic at time of interview (hallucinating or delusional) and/or have histories of unpredictable violence.  Those guys can be a bit hairy. In those situations, I may request a non-contact visit (through a glass partition) or the custody staff might leave them partially cuffed with belly chains and leg irons. I don't like to leave people in chains because of the indignity of it, but it's also important for the quality of the interview that I be very relaxed and centered and that's impossible if I feel immediately threatened.

ETA If someone is completely uncooperative, generally I will visit cellside to lay eyes on them and see what their cell looks like (sparse, dirty, garbage, etc). I talk to custody staff, medical, etc. to get a feel for what's going on. Then, I base the report primarily on collateral information.

Edited December 29, 2021 by noseybutt

[kmachete14]

This makes me think of the training you do to work in a Catholic school/teach Sunday school. They make you watch videos where pedophiles describe what they were attracted to, how they accessed their victims, and how they groomed them. (Why the lay people have to take this course while the actual pedophile priests are just shuffled around parishes baffled me, but whatever.) Anyways, the imprisoned pedophiles seemed to speak very candidly and some seemed "proud" of their accomplishments. Very creepy. 

Edited December 29, 2021 by kmachete14

[zee_four]

11 minutes ago, noseybutt said:

I am a woman and the transference the offenders have towards me is interesting. The highly religious ones are usually very sexist and will act superior. But, I am middle aged and non-threatening and nurturing and well versed in fundy world and know the lingo (without them having to translate) and have lots of training in how to build rapport. By definition, most are very very lonely by the time I see them (esp with covid isolation and ongoing lockdowns) and they are happy to have a break in their routine and, of course, I am very very interested in their story and, well, most want to be understood in whatever way that looks like to them. So yeah. They talk. Some more than others, of course. But it astonishing to me how much many will disclose. It takes sitting in a cramped and often smelly and gross interview room for hours on end. And moving slowly.  And gently reaffirming their emotional experiences over and over again. And talking about weird sex with the same comfort level and tone of voice that I would use to request a side order of fries. 

It's the least glamorous job ever. 

But, as I said before, it is interesting. Almost without exception, the CSAM offenders are not good with emotional intimacy and they eat it up when they figure out that someone is willing to listen to the full story in a nonjudgmental way. Generally they have spent a lot of time and energy concealing their life and that has its own level of exhaustion.

I don't think I have had a rude or intimidating CSAM offender. Especially if I am hired by their attorney, the attorney will have prepped them to cooperate---otherwise, why spend the money? Even when hired by the court, they are still prepped by the isolation and loneliness.

The challenging ones are the sex offenders who are actively psychotic at time of interview (hallucinating or delusional) and/or have histories of unpredictable violence.  Those guys can be a bit hairy. In those situations, I may request a non-contact visit (through a glass partition) or the custody staff might leave them partially cuffed with belly chains and leg irons. I don't like to leave people in chains because of the indignity of it, but it's also important for the quality of the interview that I be very relaxed and centered and that's impossible if I feel immediately threatened.

ETA If someone is completely uncooperative, generally I will visit cellside to lay eyes on them and see what their cell looks like (sparse, dirty, garbage, etc). I talk to custody staff, medical, etc. to get a feel for what's going on. Then, I base the report primarily on collateral information.

Thank you so much for sharing your experience and doing a job that is difficult but very needed.

My experience is with being an offender for non violent drug "crimes" (really just pretty horrific heroin addiction that started when I was 17) and after years in the system, followd by/overlapping with years working for and maintaining being sober, I finally went back to school for addiction counseling, which required a specific bachelors with specific courses and a lot of hours working under someone with the same cert before taking the licensing exam, and have since worked with young female offenders, mostly Native women like myself. I'm now halfway through grad school for my MSW to become an LCSW and be able to do more indepth mental health and addiction services without having to work under an existing organization,  which will help me serve areas and individuals not currently served by existing groups. I know little about sex offenders and their specific experiences with the system other than my PO being the sex offender PO (it was a small county so there weren't really enough sex offenders to keep her solely working with them) and a guy I worked with who had been convicted of CSAM materials and served no jailtime and had a fraction of the sentence I did. It's great to hear from an expert!

You may have mentioned it before and please don't feel compelled to share, but if you don't mind, what's your educational background for this level of work? Is there something that inspired you to work with sex offenders?

Regardless, thank you again for sharing your insight and for the work you do!

[Galbin]

13 minutes ago, kmachete14 said:

This makes me think of the training you do to work in a Catholic school/teach Sunday school. They make you watch videos where pedophiles describe what they were attracted to, how they accessed their victims, and how they groomed them. (Why the lay people have to take this course while the actual pedophile priests are just shuffled around parishes baffled me, but whatever.) Anyways, the imprisoned pedophiles seemed to speak very candidly and some seemed "proud" of their accomplishments. Very creepy. 

It's actually because of the past abuse that staff have to watch these videos. Paedophile priests are no longer shuffled from parish to parish. In my country anyhow, every parish has three independent child protection reps who are not church members and their details must be listed on church materials. Thankfully times have changed, although of course sadly some clergy will abuse children. They just won't have the same structural opportunities to hide it. 

[Expectopatronus]

@noseybutt So if Josh discloses physical and emotional abuse, can JB, Michelle and the men that had him working for them as a teen be charged? Is it possible that JB could finally face some consequences for his actions? I’ve never understood why all of the kids weren’t removed when the girls stated that they had all been spanked with a rod. In Canada, this is totally illegal. Spanking can only be done between 2-12 years, with an open hand and on a clothed bottom. Even then, it is deeply frowned upon. 

[noseybutt]

33 minutes ago, zee_four said:

Thank you so much for sharing your experience and doing a job that is difficult but very needed.

My experience is with being an offender for non violent drug "crimes" (really just pretty horrific heroin addiction that started when I was 17) and after years in the system, followd by/overlapping with years working for and maintaining being sober, I finally went back to school for addiction counseling, which required a specific bachelors with specific courses and a lot of hours working under someone with the same cert before taking the licensing exam, and have since worked with young female offenders, mostly Native women like myself. I'm now halfway through grad school for my MSW to become an LCSW and be able to do more indepth mental health and addiction services without having to work under an existing organization,  which will help me serve areas and individuals not currently served by existing groups. I know little about sex offenders and their specific experiences with the system other than my PO being the sex offender PO (it was a small county so there weren't really enough sex offenders to keep her solely working with them) and a guy I worked with who had been convicted of CSAM materials and served no jailtime and had a fraction of the sentence I did. It's great to hear from an expert!

You may have mentioned it before and please don't feel compelled to share, but if you don't mind, what's your educational background for this level of work? Is there something that inspired you to work with sex offenders?

Regardless, thank you again for sharing your insight and for the work you do!

Very cool!!!! There is a huge need for native practitioners. Totally understand and support your desire to work independently and the LCSW is a great way to do that. 

I have a PhD in clinical psychology from a large state university and then specialized training in forensic assessment (pre-doctoral internship included forensic rotations at a state hospital and post-doc was in a forensic practice). 

I started my own practice the day I was licensed, which is not the normal course of things but I was older and I make a terrible employee and I befriended a recently retired psychologist who was willing to mentor me on the business side of things. You might think the field is competitive, but not really in the sense that forensic assessment is highly specialized and there aren't as many as are needed, especially for the high-stakes cases. 

I expect you will be something of a unicorn with your combined academic credentials and lived experience. Run with it.

52 minutes ago, kmachete14 said:

This makes me think of the training you do to work in a Catholic school/teach Sunday school. They make you watch videos where pedophiles describe what they were attracted to, how they accessed their victims, and how they groomed them. (Why the lay people have to take this course while the actual pedophile priests are just shuffled around parishes baffled me, but whatever.) Anyways, the imprisoned pedophiles seemed to speak very candidly and some seemed "proud" of their accomplishments. Very creepy. 

100%. It can be very unnerving.

The reasons that they disclose to me vary widely, though. In some cases, yeah, they are showing off. In other instances, it's more a confessional--they are relieved to end the secrecy. For others, it's loneliness and a desire for connection.

It's really hard to generalize.

[noseybutt]

24 minutes ago, Expectopatronus said:

@noseybutt So if Josh discloses physical and emotional abuse, can JB, Michelle and the men that had him working for them as a teen be charged? Is it possible that JB could finally face some consequences for his actions? I’ve never understood why all of the kids weren’t removed when the girls stated that they had all been spanked with a rod. In Canada, this is totally illegal. Spanking can only be done between 2-12 years, with an open hand and on a clothed bottom. Even then, it is deeply frowned upon. 

It depends on the statutes of limitations and I leave that to the attorneys and legal sleuths.

IME the families of sex offenders generally do not get many (if any) consequences even if the offender reports horrific abuse. Because the report of the abuse is one thing, proving it is another. Josh will never be a credible witness in a court of law.

In some instances, CPS might keep a closer eye on things if minor children are in the home.

Abusers outside the immediate family also rarely face consequences, again, even if the abuse is quite serious. Because of the credibility problem and the statutes of limitations and a thousand other reasons. It takes a lot of manpower and evidence to bring charges. 

 

47 minutes ago, Galbin said:

It's actually because of the past abuse that staff have to watch these videos. Paedophile priests are no longer shuffled from parish to parish. In my country anyhow, every parish has three independent child protection reps who are not church members and their details must be listed on church materials. Thankfully times have changed, although of course sadly some clergy will abuse children. They just won't have the same structural opportunities to hide it. 

I agree with this. Generally the more hierarchical churches/religious groups have well developed safe sanctuary policies. Nothing is fool proof, but the safeguards in place are significantly better than 20 years ago. 

There is one hierarchical church that we have had a lot trouble with locally, but I won't name it in part because it's kind of the exception to the norm.

The more problematic ones these days tend to be the small, independent groups (not just Christian) that have a handful of larger extended families. 

[EmCatlyn]

27 minutes ago, Expectopatronus said:

@noseybutt So if Josh discloses physical and emotional abuse, can JB, Michelle and the men that had him working for them as a teen be charged? Is it possible that JB could finally face some consequences for his actions? I’ve never understood why all of the kids weren’t removed when the girls stated that they had all been spanked with a rod. In Canada, this is totally illegal. Spanking can only be done between 2-12 years, with an open hand and on a clothed bottom. Even then, it is deeply frowned upon. 

In the US, the laws on corporal punishment are decided by each state, and they usually focus more on whether children can be physically punished in school.  (There are at least 20 states that allow physical punishment in school.) Most of the time, there is little officially on the books regarding how corporal punishment may or may not be administered by parents, but there are rulings on where to draw the line between “discipline” and “abuse.” 

Although I couldn’t find specifics on Arkansas, in a couple of neighboring states the distinction between “discipline” and “abuse” is determined by whether there is pain and/or physical signs (bruises, prolonged redness) more than 5 or 6 hours after the discipline.  Generally this means spanking with the hand but no “rods” or “switches” or belts — though I have heard of “swatters” (fly swatters) and cushioned “paddles” being okay since they apparently do not leave lasting redness or pain.  Conversely, there are cases where open-hand spanking can leave bruises, and therefore would be considered abuse.

My guess is that in the Duggars’ case, just the report that the family used “a rod” did not raise any flags because corporal punishment is legal in Arkansas.
Only if the kids had mentioned that they had welts or that they couldn’t move or sit down for hours after being spanked would CPS have investigated further.  (Maybe they did, and haven’t found anything that crosses the line.)

[noseybutt]

9 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

 

My guess is that in the Duggars’ case, just the report that the family used “a rod” did not raise any flags because corporal punishment is legal in Arkansas.
Only if the kids had mentioned that they had welts or that they couldn’t move or sit down for hours after being spanked would CPS have investigated further.  (Maybe they did, and haven’t found anything that crosses the line.)

It's also the cultural norm. Maybe less so than twenty years ago, but still not uncommon. The tide hasn't turned in that part of the US yet. 

That said, I'm not sure what the current AR standards are for children in split custody situations. If one parent does not want corporal punishment, can the other parent use it? Asking because split custody cases are often the bellweather. 

[EmCatlyn]

29 minutes ago, noseybutt said:

It's also the cultural norm. Maybe less so than twenty years ago, but still not uncommon. The tide hasn't turned in that part of the US yet. 

That said, I'm not sure what the current AR standards are for children in split custody situations. If one parent does not want corporal punishment, can the other parent use it? Asking because split custody cases are often the bellweather. 

I couldn’t find any specifics about Arkansas except as related to schools. (Physical punishment by teachers and administrators is permitted.)

For parents, it is clear Arkansas allows spanking but not clear where the line is drawn.   I suppose I might find more, if I dug into child abuse cases, but I might also run into depressing stuff and still not get a straight answer about what is considered “abuse.” 

In any case, since CPS in Arkansas didn’t remove the kids from the house because of the molestation, they weren’t going to remove the kids from the house because of corporal punishment unless they considered it serious abuse.  The “rod” must have been acceptable.  As you say, it’s partly a cultural thing.  And there is considerable differences across states.

Football player Adrian Peterson case in 2014 involved not only split custody (or visitation) but two different states.  The state where the mother lived (Minnesota) did not allow spanking.  The state where Peterson lived (Texas) allowed spanking/corporal punishment but it isn’t supposed to leave bruises (and this did).  Peterson apparently pled “no contest.”  

BTW Searching with the words “spanking” and “discipline” and Arkansas got me to what appeared to be some dominatrix sites. 🙄  (Maybe friends of Josh?)

[HerNameIsBuffy]

9 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

BTW Searching with the words “spanking” and “discipline” and Arkansas got me to what appeared to be some dominatrix sites. 🙄  (Maybe friends of Josh?)

Yeah, those would be key words for those kinds of sites.  But I highly doubt Josh was into consensual anything with adults, and adults into that have no greater sexual interest in children than anyone else.  

Pedos are their own special breed of awful and conflating them with consensual sexual activity of adults is very fundy like in that it paints all unconventional sex with the same brush.  

[Alisamer]

12 hours ago, Galbin said:

It's actually because of the past abuse that staff have to watch these videos. Paedophile priests are no longer shuffled from parish to parish. In my country anyhow, every parish has three independent child protection reps who are not church members and their details must be listed on church materials. Thankfully times have changed, although of course sadly some clergy will abuse children. They just won't have the same structural opportunities to hide it. 

I recently printed a brochure for and the certificates for completion of a program that all staff in the local Catholic Diocese have to complete that is aimed at abuse prevention. It seemed pretty in-depth, and the brochure was a "keep this and refer to it" handout with the basic guidelines and possible red flags in bullet-point form, and all the info about who to contact if abuse is suspected or witnessed. They seemed to be really specific and intentional about preventing abuse. Hopefully it works. 

12 hours ago, Expectopatronus said:

I’ve never understood why all of the kids weren’t removed when the girls stated that they had all been spanked with a rod. In Canada, this is totally illegal. Spanking can only be done between 2-12 years, with an open hand and on a clothed bottom. Even then, it is deeply frowned upon. 

Others have gone into more detail, but yeah spanking with a rod? As long as there wasn't major damage, it was considered normal and OK. Some teachers at school had an actual wooden paddle. My parents always threatened to cut "a hickory switch" or that my dad would use his belt, but generally just used hands - though I remember once being chased by my mom with a metal flyswatter. Frankly the fear of the spanking was worse than the pain of the spanking. And I don't remember a single thing I was ever spanked for at home, so it clearly was not an effective form of discipline. 

I think that the surge of adrenaline and fear of being yanked up and hauled off for a spanking kind of overwrites the memory of whatever the kid was doing that "earned" the spanking in the first place, in many cases. Which makes the spanking pointless.

[noseybutt]

9 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

 

Football player Adrian Peterson case in 2014 involved not only split custody (or visitation) but two different states.  The state where the mother lived (Minnesota) did not allow spanking.  The state where Peterson lived (Texas) allowed spanking/corporal punishment but it isn’t supposed to leave bruises (and this did).  Peterson apparently pled “no contest.”  

BTW Searching with the words “spanking” and “discipline” and Arkansas got me to what appeared to be some dominatrix sites. 🙄  (Maybe friends of Josh?)

Whoa. I wasn't familiar with the Peterson case and I did go look at the photos and his statements. That's some intergenerational and cultural trauma, right there. 

[EmCatlyn]

1 hour ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Yeah, those would be key words for those kinds of sites.  But I highly doubt Josh was into consensual anything with adults, and adults into that have no greater sexual interest in children than anyone else.  

Pedos are their own special breed of awful and conflating them with consensual sexual activity of adults is very fundy like in that it paints all unconventional sex with the same brush.  

Josh seems to have got his jollies in many different ways (consider the Ashley Madison thing, and Danica, etc.).  His proclivities do not seem exclusively pedophiliac. (He is still a monster for what he did.)

I was not conflating “consensual sexual activity of adults” with pedophilia.  I was jokingly connecting Josh the ever-horny with a dominatrix. 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

2 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

Josh seems to have got his jollies in many different ways (consider the Ashley Madison thing, and Danica, etc.).  His proclivities do not seem exclusively pedophiliac. (He is still a monster for what he did.)

I was not conflating “consensual sexual activity of adults” with pedophilia.  I was jokingly connecting Josh the ever-horny with a dominatrix. 

No, you make a joke about a dominatrix being a friend of Josh with no evidence whatsoever that they are into illegal activity.  That's pretty shitty and along the lines of fundies thinking all "perverts" are the same.  I'm not calling people who practice consensual sex perverts, I'm pointing out your post read as if you were doing that.

I'm sure Josh also enjoyed a good waffle from time to time.  I doubt if the websites you'd turned up were about a waffles you'd have made the joke about being friends of Josh.

[Not that josh's mom]

The Crystal Ball person has "exclusive" jail log in sheets. According to her, Anna has visited Josh 19 times. All videos. No one else is on the log. Not Jim Bob, Michelle, or any one else. I know the source is sketchy, but that's interesting. After seeing Anna leave the courthouse after the conviction, I hoped she'd have at least started to question herself. Wrong again!