(CW: CSA) Josh & Anna 50: Anna Breaking the Opposite of News about the Whodunnit of the Century

[patsymae]

52 minutes ago, Father Son Holy Goat said:

I’m still hoping for an execution but I’ll settle for 19 years 

I'm not in favor of capital punishment but JB is. Oh, que dilemma.

[Queen Of Hearts]

54 minutes ago, Father Son Holy Goat said:

I’m still hoping for an execution but I’ll settle for 19 years 

...and counting!

[Mama Mia]

On 3/22/2022 at 3:03 PM, Guanabana said:

Is anyone watching the confirmation hearing? The last case discussed involved downloading porn and the sentence. My husband doesn’t follow the Duggars but asked me if that was similar to what what’s his name did. 

While they were doing the questioning about pedos and porn, there were pictures all over Twitter  of Josh with Ted Cruz, and many other conservative politicians pointing out their love for that particular pedo. 

[QuiverFullofBooks]

Without a Crystal Ball is saying that Anna has sold some real estate lately. I know she’s not the most reliable source, but it sounds like this is backed up with public records. WACB speculated that Anna needed the money to pay lawyers, or possibly is getting rid of assets before a possible fine or seizure. The interesting part was that she had a photo of a large house that Josh had supposedly been renovating at the time of his arrest, which Anna sold in October. I think Josh was too lazy to renovate anything. Maybe his brothers were doing it to get Josh off the compound.

[Alisamer]

44 minutes ago, QuiverFullofBooks said:

Without a Crystal Ball is saying that Anna has sold some real estate lately. I know she’s not the most reliable source, but it sounds like this is backed up with public records. WACB speculated that Anna needed the money to pay lawyers, or possibly is getting rid of assets before a possible fine or seizure. The interesting part was that she had a photo of a large house that Josh had supposedly been renovating at the time of his arrest, which Anna sold in October. I think Josh was too lazy to renovate anything. Maybe his brothers were doing it to get Josh off the compound.

I think it's more likely JB than Anna, frankly. We know JimBob uses his kids and their family's names all the time on various real estate investments and companies and such. I think it's likely anything that would normally be in Josh's name is actually in Anna's but JimBob likely has his fingers in all the pies.

The only ones I feel like who might own property in their own right are Jill & Derrick, Joy & Austin (because Austin seems to have some sense), and Jinger & Jeremy (because Jeremy has lived in the real world before, and also because they moved so far away).  I tend to assume for anyone else JimBob is involved and is putting things in their names so at tax time they show as their assets, not his. 

[Guanabana]

25 minutes ago, Alisamer said:

I think it's more likely JB than Anna, frankly. We know JimBob uses his kids and their family's names all the time on various real estate investments and companies and such. I think it's likely anything that would normally be in Josh's name is actually in Anna's but JimBob likely has his fingers in all the pies.

The only ones I feel like who might own property in their own right are Jill & Derrick, Joy & Austin (because Austin seems to have some sense), and Jinger & Jeremy (because Jeremy has lived in the real world before, and also because they moved so far away).  I tend to assume for anyone else JimBob is involved and is putting things in their names so at tax time they show as their assets, not his. 

JD owns a home, he cleared a property and a bank paid him with land and the house on it. He must be renting the house for income. Otherwise it doesn’t make sense for them to live in that tiny prefabricated home. 

[Letgo]

The recent SC hearings don't indicate much of a chance that Josh will be given a long sentence. The articles I've read say that our sentencing guidelines are antiquated and too harsh, hence the controversy over not giving the maximum.

[Alisamer]

1 hour ago, Letgo said:

The recent SC hearings don't indicate much of a chance that Josh will be given a long sentence. The articles I've read say that our sentencing guidelines are antiquated and too harsh, hence the controversy over not giving the maximum.

Were they getting CSA mixed up with posessing weed, there? 

I mean, generally speaking compared to most other western countries our sentencing guidelines for many things do seem quite harsh (we still have the death penalty, life without parole is more common here, plus all the minor drug crimes that disproportionately affect poorer people and minorities), but CSA is one place where I feel like sentencing should be really harsh. Drug addicts can go to rehab and get treatment, at least. 

And I hope the TYPE of CSA materials he downloaded are considered, because at least some of it is the type of material that even many pedophiles cringe away from and don't want to see. 

[Anne Of Gray Gables]

Looks like Josh's attorneys got their sentencing delay.  New date is May 25.  Which may be good for his counsel, but I'm sure jail sucks more for Josh than Federal prison will.

https://www.nwahomepage.com/josh-duggar-trial/josh-duggar-sentencing-delayed-until-may/?fbclid=IwAR268T7wDMa43ZicHOrW9I4IonoYiyZ4koPvq2PZLLKpnZQDqnS5UITrj_k

[noseybutt]

4 hours ago, Mama Mia said:

While they were doing the questioning about pedos and porn, there were pictures all over Twitter  of Josh with Ted Cruz, and many other conservative politicians pointing out their love for that particular pedo. 

I missed this but HALLELUJAH.

The population most likely to be convicted of CSAM is white men with above average education. Many are quite religious. Cruz and Hawley do not seem to understand this.

Everything is upside down in Q world. 

[Letgo]

1 hour ago, Alisamer said:

Were they getting CSA mixed up with posessing weed, there? 

I mean, generally speaking compared to most other western countries our sentencing guidelines for many things do seem quite harsh (we still have the death penalty, life without parole is more common here, plus all the minor drug crimes that disproportionately affect poorer people and minorities), but CSA is one place where I feel like sentencing should be really harsh. Drug addicts can go to rehab and get treatment, at least. 

And I hope the TYPE of CSA materials he downloaded are considered, because at least some of it is the type of material that even many pedophiles cringe away from and don't want to see. 

No, apparently CSA material isn't viewed as requiring long sentences, even though the guidelines call for them. A majority of judges sentence defendants to less than the maximum. One article did discuss the difference between defendants who were deemed by a psychological evaluation as likely to reoffend and were a danger to children and those who were not. I can see a more limited sentence for the latter, but I have no problem with a long sentence for the former. I'm guessing Josh isn't going to be in prison that long. It'll be even shorter since he'll get credit for time served in county jail. I'm afraid he's probably going to get out soon enough to add to his quiver.

I have also noticed that other Western countries have much shorter sentences than ours here the US. I wonder if their recidivism rate is better or worse?

[DalmatianCat]

2 hours ago, Letgo said:

The recent SC hearings don't indicate much of a chance that Josh will be given a long sentence.

I noticed that…I tried to look up what Judge Jackson would typically give for Josh’s crime and couldn’t find much. Based on Emily D Baker and Scott Reisch’s podcast breakdowns of the federal guidelines I originally thought he’d get 10-15 years, now I’m guessing it will be closer to 5.

[Anne Of Gray Gables]

2 hours ago, DalmatianCat said:

I noticed that…I tried to look up what Judge Jackson would typically give for Josh’s crime and couldn’t find much. Based on Emily D Baker and Scott Reisch’s podcast breakdowns of the federal guidelines I originally thought he’d get 10-15 years, now I’m guessing it will be closer to 5.

I heard Emily say 8 - 12, but she also said she's often disappointed in Federal sentencing.

My guess is that it will more than 5, but maybe not much more.  This judge tends to go with 6 - 8, but it's hard to find an exactly on point case.  Or at least it was last time I looked. 

[sleepygirl1]

I’m hoping for around eight because there’s a good chance Anna will not get pregnant again once he gets out.

[noseybutt]

3 hours ago, Letgo said:

No, apparently CSA material isn't viewed as requiring long sentences, even though the guidelines call for them. A majority of judges sentence defendants to less than the maximum. One article did discuss the difference between defendants who were deemed by a psychological evaluation as likely to reoffend and were a danger to children and those who were not. I can see a more limited sentence for the latter, but I have no problem with a long sentence for the former. I'm guessing Josh isn't going to be in prison that long. It'll be even shorter since he'll get credit for time served in county jail. I'm afraid he's probably going to get out soon enough to add to his quiver.

I have also noticed that other Western countries have much shorter sentences than ours here the US. I wonder if their recidivism rate is better or worse?

I'm debating what to say because it's easy for words to be taken out of context. But, some background---

Recidivism for CSAM tends to be low (unless person is already a contact offender). This seems to be the case in most countries. Which means there is a base rate issue---because rates of repeat offenses are so low, it becomes harder to predict which specific individual will reoffend.

I do risk assessments and I have very mixed feelings about using level of risk in sentencing. From a criminal justice issue, it seems like sentencing should be based on the crime. Risk is more appropriate for level of security and type of treatment that might be offered to the guilty person. Further, there is some good evidence that our risk assessment instruments are prejudicial against certain populations (Cananda, for example, has limits on use of risk assessment instruments with native populations due to lack of normative data).

There is a moral quandary here. CSAM is highly offensive, grotesque, and depraved. There is no way to work a case and not be deeply disturbed by the plight of the children. It's about as bad as it gets.  I really think what most people want is for CSAM and child sexual abuse to STOP.  Sentencing a person who has viewed CSAM (but not manufactured or sold it) does not necessarily stop the abuse. It takes a different and more involved type of law enforcement work to put the creators out of business. It also takes work in impoverished, war-torn and climate change affected countries to help stabilize the population and create a safer overall world for kids.

Here is where I get really conflicted: law enforcement often does NOT remove these files from the internet when the files are discovered. Rather, they electronically tag and/or monitor the files to catch the people downloading. But that is super weird, in a way. It would be like tagging a haul of cocaine and recirculating it in the population in order to catch people trying to buy cocaine. Why not focus on scrubbing the files from the internet? Some people will argue that is technologically impossible. Well, true. But so is catching every person who downloads. 

I really believe CSAM offenders who are not hands-on offenders---they are low hanging fruit. The focus should be on the creators and distributors/sellers. AND---contact offenders. Many of those senators pitching a fit over CSAM come from states that mandatory sentences for child molestation that are lower than federal CSAM guidelines.

(And again. Josh is a contact offender. So yeah. I am not lumping him in with the low-risk group.)


 

[justoneoftwo]

A lot of this comes down to the question what is the purpose of punishment. Unless we can answer that it is very hard to know what country is doing the best job.  

[Giraffe]

1 hour ago, noseybutt said:

Recidivism for CSAM tends to be low (unless person is already a contact offender).

 

At the risk of sounding like an asshole, is the low recidivism rate low because people have stopped or is it low because they’ve gotten better at hiding it?

[noseybutt]

43 minutes ago, Giraffe said:

At the risk of sounding like an asshole, is the low recidivism rate low because people have stopped or is it low because they’ve gotten better at hiding it?

That's a legitimate question and an issue with all recidivism data.

I am seeing increasing numbers of CSAM handles at the state level, and with state parole there are a lot of restrictions around electronic access. IMO that is wise because it's direct oversight of where the problematic behavior lies. 

Nobody died from using a basic text based flip phone.

That's a round about admission that I can't answer the question. It is not uncommon for people to leave prison more savvy than when they went in. The catch is that 5-10 years is long time in terms of technology and I am not sure the learning curve is all that great. Josh was not overly sophisticated with his computer usage and I don't see him morphing into a some kind of hacker genius while in custody.
 

 

50 minutes ago, justoneoftwo said:

A lot of this comes down to the question what is the purpose of punishment. Unless we can answer that it is very hard to know what country is doing the best job.  

I agree. 

Is the purpose to provide a measure of justice for the children who were filmed? To keep CSAM from being produced and/or sold? To protect children?  To keep a non-contact offender from morphing into a contact offender?

Edited March 24, 2022 by noseybutt

[Father Son Holy Goat]

I think a fair sentence is life without parole because as a survivor of child sexual abuse that is what I get, life without parole. 

[Mama Mia]

5 hours ago, Letgo said:

No, apparently CSA material isn't viewed as requiring long sentences, even though the guidelines call for them. A majority of judges sentence defendants to less than the maximum. One article did discuss the difference between defendants who were deemed by a psychological evaluation as likely to reoffend and were a danger to children and those who were not. I can see a more limited sentence for the latter, but I have no problem with a long sentence for the former. I'm guessing Josh isn't going to be in prison that long. It'll be even shorter since he'll get credit for time served in county jail. I'm afraid he's probably going to get out soon enough to add to his quiver.

I have also noticed that other Western countries have much shorter sentences than ours here the US. I wonder if their recidivism rate is better or worse?

What I just read is that many judges feel the federal sentencing guidelines are too harsh for CSA viewing/possession  because they are based on pre-internet usage. So at the time the laws were made, the numbers of images were much lower, and people had to much more actively search it out. There weren’t one million sex acts on your phone, some of which might have “barely legal” teens who are not in fact legal.  Also there is the issue in at least one of the cases that was mentioned at the hearings (and was a Law and Order SVU episode) - where a teen produces sexual videos, texts them to a boyfriend/ girlfriend who is 18 or 19 - and the 18 year old is charged as an adult with possessing CSA materials. Basically technology changed the landscape.

None of that applies to the level of awful that Josh was convicted of though. And I would like him to get at least 12 years - to protect the M’s and prevent any future M’s - but I doubt that will happen. 

[samurai_sarah]

1 hour ago, Mama Mia said:

What I just read is that many judges feel the federal sentencing guidelines are too harsh for CSA viewing/possession  because they are based on pre-internet usage. So at the time the laws were made, the numbers of images were much lower, and people had to much more actively search it out. There weren’t one million sex acts on your phone, some of which might have “barely legal” teens who are not in fact legal.  Also there is the issue in at least one of the cases that was mentioned at the hearings (and was a Law and Order SVU episode) - where a teen produces sexual videos, texts them to a boyfriend/ girlfriend who is 18 or 19 - and the 18 year old is charged as an adult with possessing CSA materials. Basically technology changed the landscape.

None of that applies to the level of awful that Josh was convicted of though. And I would like him to get at least 12 years - to protect the M’s and prevent any future M’s - but I doubt that will happen. 

I agree with you.

While I can logically follow the judges' reasoning, I fail to see why saying that something is much more widely available now would exculpate someone to whichever degree. I would argue that the availability re-victimises the surviors over and over again, affecting lives far more than in the olden days since the internet is forever, and therefore we need harsh sentences to drive it home that availability doesn't mean less culpability.

I would argue that saying that it's available all over the internet is trying to normalise heinous crimes in favour of the perpetrator.

[Mama Mia]

4 hours ago, samurai_sarah said:

I agree with you.

While I can logically follow the judges' reasoning, I fail to see why saying that something is much more widely available now would exculpate someone to whichever degree. I would argue that the availability re-victimises the surviors over and over again, affecting lives far more than in the olden days since the internet is forever, and therefore we need harsh sentences to drive it home that availability doesn't mean less culpability.

I would argue that saying that it's available all over the internet is trying to normalise heinous crimes in favour of the perpetrator.

Very good point. I assume the reasoning is that since it is everywhere, it also is much easier to accidentally have it as part of the porn on the phone / computer. 
But that would seem to not apply to the evil nastiness that Josh had on his computer. It good that they seem to distinguish by age group - he can’t very well say he thought an infant was really 18 - Hopefully they also take torture etc into account. 

Edited March 25, 2022 by Mama Mia

[Cam]

I guess my way of thinking is that Josh tried to keep his criminal activity secret, using a computer at the car lot instead of his home and installing a partition to keep it hidden. He knew how wrong it was. Yet he chose to go down that path because he thought he could get away with it.

I really think JB knew Josh still had issues. JB thought he could provide Josh a private outlet. so to speak, out of the public eye, so that if Josh was up to no good, at least he had a tiny little hell-hole shack away from everyone for his dirty deeds to be kept secret. As long as Josh had that, he could keep up the facade of holy family man husband in public. 
 

Edited March 25, 2022 by Cam

[Dandruff]

6 hours ago, Cam said:

He knew how wrong it was. Yet he chose to go down that path because he thought he could get away with it.

I think he knew how socially unacceptable and illegal it was, but am not sure he saw it as wrong.

The molestations were allowed to go on for years then his family decided to go on TV and present themselves as wholesome proponents of family values, with Josh featured.  People considered them quirky but lapped it up.  The Duggars did things their way and didn't appear to have any interest in succumbing to the mainstream.  As a result, they ate rice-three-ways and now own planes.  I expect they still consider themselves wholesome. 

Josh was outed as a member of Ashley Madison (while working for the FRC, ffs), was sent away to work and pray it off, then came home and had three more children with a wife who remained loyal to him.  The family - sans him - managed to stay on TV, with associated perks.

Josh was convicted of receiving/possessing CSAM and his father confronted a judge to try to help him.  Expensive lawyers are also doing their best to help.  His wife appears to be staying loyal.  He continues to claim he's not guilty.

I genuinely wonder what he believes he did wrong.

[SassyPants]

Just musing aloud here because this whole debauchery? Depravity? is so far outside my every day world… The Duggars have 19 kids, most adults. They raised them in the crazy world dictated by Gothard principles and purity culture. The oldest adult kid clearly engages in illegal, immoral and horrific activities and is currently in jail. There is ONE, 1/19 of the offspring 1/14th of the adult offspring who has challenged her upbringing in any significant way and moved on to live a more standard lifestyle. The following was required for Jill to form new beliefs: time(8 years), professional counseling, a supportive and loving spouse and IL family, education, a true spiritual home (Cross Church), friends, money, living within a community not named Duggar. My questions:

1) How did Josh’s upbringing influence his depravity?

2) How hard is it, without education, money, support (family, friends, spouse) professional counseling to break away from a cult?

3) Could Josh ever truly be reformed and live/operate by the rules of society?