Josh and Anna 53: 151 Month Sentence

[GreenBeans]

16 hours ago, Sullie06 said:

I think the 20 years of Probation will be the real struggle for Josh

I was wondering about the “no photo stories by devices or access to the internet” condition. I mean, how is this even going to work in today’s day and age (or well, in 12 years when he gets out)? People need their phones and the internet for just everyday life. How are you supposed to comply with that for 20 years (!) in life outside of prison? It just doesn’t seem realistic, even from today’s experience, and I think it will be even less possible between 2035 and 2055.

[Shrubbery]

46 minutes ago, Pibblesmiles said:

For those who weighed in on the subject of "not-like-other-girls," would you consider Elizabeth Bennet a Regency example of this trope?  Elizabeth climbed trees as a child, and still enjoys long rambles by herself.  She walked 3 miles to Nether field, despite knowing her skirts would end up 6 inches deep in mud and she wouldn't be fit to be seen by polite company.  She prefers gowns with minimal lace and simple lines to the more frilly, "girly" designs preferred by others.  Her father allowed her access to his library, which she took advantage of to read books out of the ordinary to those normally read by young ladies.  She is accused (by Caroline Bingley, so take that for what it's worth) of having  "an abominable sort of conceited independence -- a most country-town indifference to decorum." And, she most definitely does not simper at, nor try to attract, the eminently eligible Fitzwilliam Darcy.

It’s been ages since I read the book, so I can’t say this with absolute certainty, but some of the examples you gave may not actually be in the book, just in the movies and/or fandom background. I might be wrong though.

Regardless, I would not see Elizabeth as an example of „unlike other girls.“ For one thing, even her more unusual pursuits are still well within the norm of what is considered acceptable behaviour by her social peers - they just don’t necessarily think it’s very fashionable behaviour. Caroline Bingley isn’t shocked because Elizabeth behaves like a man, she’s disgusted because - in her opinion - Elizabeth behaves like a country bumpkin. And Elizabeth does share quite a few traits and interests that read as definitely female -coded - she plays the piano, she participates in dances, she interacts with other women as equals without needing to stress her superiority, and while she is unwilling to just look for financial comfort, she is definitely aware that she will end up marrying someone sooner or later. 

Some of all this not reading  like the „unlike other girls“ trope may come down to Austen’s skills as a writer - under a lesser pen, Elizabeth might have ended up wearing breeches when the fancy caught her, riding her father’s horses across the country shooting guns and playing billiard with the Lucas sons just to underline thaz she is different from others.

But ultimately, what sets Elizabeth - and Darcy - apart from the other characters is not their willingness or unwillingness to conform to gender roles, but the fact that their ability to self-reflect and to improve their characters allows them to come together and accept each other as true equals in a partnership, outside of social factors such as gender expectations and financial standing.

That’s just my take on it, though, and it’s been ages since I did any sort of literature analysis, so you may all feel free to disagree

[Natalie22]

6 minutes ago, Shrubbery said:

It’s been ages since I read the book, so I can’t say this with absolute certainty, but some of the examples you gave may not actually be in the book, just in the movies and/or fandom background. I might be wrong though.

Regardless, I would not see Elizabeth as an example of „unlike other girls.“ For one thing, even her more unusual pursuits are still well within the norm of what is considered acceptable behaviour by her social peers - they just don’t necessarily think it’s very fashionable behaviour. Caroline Bingley isn’t shocked because Elizabeth behaves like a man, she’s disgusted because - in her opinion - Elizabeth behaves like a country bumpkin. And Elizabeth does share quite a few traits and interests that read as definitely female -coded - she plays the piano, she participates in dances, she interacts with other women as equals without needing to stress her superiority, and while she is unwilling to just look for financial comfort, she is definitely aware that she will end up marrying someone sooner or later. 

Some of all this not reading  like the „unlike other girls“ trope may come down to Austen’s skills as a writer - under a lesser pen, Elizabeth might have ended up wearing breeches when the fancy caught her, riding her father’s horses across the country shooting guns and playing billiard with the Lucas sons just to underline thaz she is different from others.

But ultimately, what sets Elizabeth - and Darcy - apart from the other characters is not their willingness or unwillingness to conform to gender roles, but the fact that their ability to self-reflect and to improve their characters allows them to come together and accept each other as true equals in a partnership, outside of social factors such as gender expectations and financial standing.

That’s just my take on it, though, and it’s been ages since I did any sort of literature analysis, so you may all feel free to disagree

I demand more literature analysis!!! I'll allow you to chose the book though  

[GreenBeans]

11 hours ago, neuroticcat said:

I think Jason’s statement reveals he’s still deep in fundamentalism. The only way to reconcile Josh’s actions with the cult’s promises are “he was never a Christian to begin with.”

It’s the No True Scotsman Fallacy!

Edited May 27, 2022 by GreenBeans
Riffles

[Scrabblemaster]

@Shrubbery @Pibblesmiles

I've read "Longbourn" from Jo Baker a while ago. It's a book about the life of the servants from the Bennett household and it was very interesting to read. Some sort of parallel story telling without the main characters. But I had the backstory in mind when I've read it. I recommend it to read if you have read "Pride and Prejudice". It's different but good.

Edited May 27, 2022 by Scrabblemaster

[hoipolloi]

Re: romance fiction. I recommend following Smart Bitches, Trashy Books. They are smart and funny as hell. They include clear plot synopses so you can tell what you're getting into. Lots of recs for LGBTQ romances as well as sci fi.

 

[ToriAmos]

48 minutes ago, Scrabblemaster said:

@Shrubbery @Pibblesmiles

I've read "Longbourn" from Jo Baker a while ago. It's a book about the life of the servants from the Bennett household and it was very interesting to read. Some sort of parallel story telling without the main characters. But I had the backstory in mind when I've read it. I recommend it to read if you have read "Pride and Prejudice". It's different but good.

Yes I loved that too. Wish there was more period fiction told from the 'below stairs' perspective.

[Smee]

I hate Josh Duggar as much as the next person and there is no shortage of reasons to find him repulsive but can we please not stoop to fat shaming and insinuations that overweight bodies are directly correlated to a lack of willpower or self restraint?

[EmCatlyn]

3 hours ago, Pibblesmiles said:

For those who weighed in on the subject of "not-like-other-girls," would you consider Elizabeth Bennet a Regency example of this trope?  Elizabeth climbed trees as a child, and still enjoys long rambles by herself.  She walked 3 miles to Nether field, despite knowing her skirts would end up 6 inches deep in mud and she wouldn't be fit to be seen by polite company.  She prefers gowns with minimal lace and simple lines to the more frilly, "girly" designs preferred by others.  Her father allowed her access to his library, which she took advantage of to read books out of the ordinary to those normally read by young ladies.  She is accused (by Caroline Bingley, so take that for what it's worth) of having  "an abominable sort of conceited independence -- a most country-town indifference to decorum." And, she most definitely does not simper at, nor try to attract, the eminently eligible Fitzwilliam Darcy.

Almost all heroines are “not like other girls” or else they wouldn’t be interesting enough to be heroines.  Austen makes fun of this in Northanger Abbey where she makes a point of how “ordinary” Catherine is.

The problem with the “not like other girls” trope of romance is that it becomes repetitive and predictable.  

 

[Freejin]

Can someone explain the psychology of knowing you are guilty of a crime and sitting through a trial and sentencing pleading innocent? What is the criminology? What is the psychology?  Have there been studies about what happens to a person’s mental state when they lie to the world? And themselves?

[libgirl2]

5 hours ago, hoipolloi said:

Re: romance fiction. I recommend following Smart Bitches, Trashy Books. They are smart and funny as hell. They include clear plot synopses so you can tell what you're getting into. Lots of recs for LGBTQ romances as well as sci fi.

 

I get their newsletter! 

[Sullie06]

14 hours ago, marmalade said:

Pot is not nationally legal, so it is not legal in the eyes of the Feds. That's why there is a no marijuana stipulation in the release stipulations. Now, I guess that will change if pot is legalized nationally sometime in the next decade (which is entirely possible). 

We have a marijuana stipulation in our conditions as well even though it is legal in our state. You still can't use it, despite its legality, while on Probation in our Jurisdiction unless you have a qualified medical reason to use it. 

13 hours ago, ToriAmos said:

Does it list alcohol as well, in the probabtion conditions? DuggarData seemed to think it indicated he had a prior history with cannabis, but I would have thought it would have come out at the trial if that was the case. Maybe he really was stoned in that arrest mugshot!

I can only speak to our conditions specifically but our do say no alcohol. If you have a history of alcohol abuse or alcohol was a factor in your offense (DWI, DUI, DV, Bar Fight, Disorderly Conduct, ETC) you are also not allowed to be in establishments that serve alcohol or have alcohol in your place of residence even if it's not yours. So if you live with your spouse for example, they can't have alcohol in the home. 

[Sullie06]

7 hours ago, GreenBeans said:

I was wondering about the “no photo stories by devices or access to the internet” condition. I mean, how is this even going to work in today’s day and age (or well, in 12 years when he gets out)? People need their phones and the internet for just everyday life. How are you supposed to comply with that for 20 years (!) in life outside of prison? It just doesn’t seem realistic, even from today’s experience, and I think it will be even less possible between 2035 and 2055.

We have people on right now for sexual offenses who are not allowed to have phones/devices with internet access or internet access in their homes. They have to register all devices and passwords with their PO. The PO has search access to their home and all digital devices at all times. So they check their accounts regularly but they also do unannounced home checks and look for devices that they don't have access to. 

As for the offenders, most of them get some sort of flip phone with no internet access. If they need the internet for work, they have to be monitored while using it and cannot have it for private reasons. If it's an inconvenience for them to bad, they have these conditions in place because of the crimes they committed. 

[Shouldabeenacowboy]

Glad he got what he got, obviously was hoping for more - even though no sentence is too big for what he did- but from my humble non-lawyer perspective, I thought the judge was thorough and balanced, and (my speculation) he realized long ago that Josh is a POS. I stand by my thought that, if anything, he saw right through the "character letters" from Anna, Meech & co. 

Josh, or JB, never received any real consequence for anything they did. It must be a tough wake up call to see that you can't just sweep this under the rug anymore, and that you can't just pray it away. The real world does not work like that, and the bubble they all have been living in has burst at last - hopefully for good. 

I won't be sad if I don't ever see their smug faces ever again. 

💜

[Freejin]

I know WOACB is totally unreliable but in her recent post she notes that more charges may be coming. On the off chance that she’s right, what happens when an incarcerated person is charged with an additional crime? How does that work?

[Cults-r-us]

7 hours ago, GreenBeans said:

It’s the No True Scotsman Fallacy!

True.

I liked Jason's letter. I thought it was  thoughtful (although steeped in fundamentalism), especially recognizing it is taking a crisis this drastic to maybe get Josh to believe he needs to change, as well as kind. It is encouraging to think our little Howler grew into a lucid and kind-hearted man.

[Freejin]

9 minutes ago, Cults-r-us said:

True.

I liked Jason's letter. I thought it was  thoughtful (although steeped in fundamentalism), especially recognizing it is taking a crisis this drastic to maybe get Josh to believe he needs to change, as well as kind. It is encouraging to think our little Howler grew into a lucid and kind-hearted man.

I think public statements that justice was served coming from people who have been sheltered and lied to their whole lives are actually really amazing. Good for Jason for thinking for himself. 

[fundiefan]

12 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

I don’t see how you can “tell” a baby or toddler that they don’t have to “hug Uncle Morty or let Aunt Janie hold” them.  Basically, you show them.  By the time kids are verbal enough to say “no” to unwanted signs of affection, they will have learned that they can (or can’t) refuse to be hugged or held— just because you read their body language and support them. (“I guess Little Ray doesn’t feel like hugging today,” or “Robin doesn’t like being held, Aunt Janie.”)  

With my kids, my daughter never met a person she didn’t want to hug and be held by, but my son was another matter.  I simply supported them in what they wanted to do.  Even my hug-everyone daughter didn’t like to be grabbed.  Since she was an early talker, she had no problem (at age 2) telling a grown up who grabbed her hand to lead her to sit with some kids in another spot, “I don’t want to go with you.”  In short, by the time kids are verbal, they should have been shown that they can say “no.”

The problem with people like the Duggars is that they don’t give kids this non-verbal message.  I am not sure if they could give the kids verbal permission to say “no” to unwanted hugs.  I hope they can.  But if they can’t, at the very least, they should encourage kids to say “no” to touching in the “private zone.”

Personally, I think a huge non-verbal message to kids is Santa & Easter Bunny pictures. How many people plop their baby in the lap of some giant, over dressed character & take pictures of their screaming kid because they think it's funny. From the get go, babies are put in situations they don't like. I know fundies don't do Santa but in general it's done by all walks of life all the time without any thought to  what they are teaching their children. Imagine being a terrified toddler, plopped in a giant rabbit's lap and you're unhappy and screaming in terror - and mommy, safety, is directly in front of you not only ignoring you but laughing at you and taking pictures. Your safety is just feet away and not protecting you. That's teaching them that mommy/daddy are not their safe people. It has always broken my heart to see those pictures and hear those stories of how "cute" it was/is. 

[Magenta]

11 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

I don’t disagree at all.  However, I think they should be told a simplified version of the truth for starters and more when they ask questions.  I don’t think a 12-year-old needs to be told (possible trigger)

  Hide contents

that her father got off watching little girls raped and tortured.

I think if she asks, “what kind of bad things” she can be told more, until gradually she gets answers.  Initially, however, she doesn’t need the whole story.  The kids need the truth, but it should be given to them according to what they ask and what they can understand.

The sad thing is that they will not be told anything remotely like the truth and they will have to find the whole sordid story very painfully,

It is okay to tell kids you will give them more info when they are older.

1 hour ago, Freejin said:

I know WOACB is totally unreliable but in her recent post she notes that more charges may be coming. On the off chance that she’s right, what happens when an incarcerated person is charged with an additional crime? How does that work?

Same as with anyone. They are tried and if convicted, sentenced. 

Edited May 27, 2022 by Magenta

[Freejin]

4 minutes ago, Magenta said:

It is okay to tell kids you will give them more info when they are older.

Same as with anyone. They are tried and if convicted, sentenced. 

Do they appear in court for trial or are the videoed in?

[Magenta]

Just now, Freejin said:

Do they appear in court for trial or are the videoed in?

It could be either.

[The Mother Dust]

What surprised me most about the sentence (in a good way) was the TWENTY YEARS of supervised release after the sentence.  I was just not expecting that number. One of the restrictions being no Internet allowed except for limited circumstances....that's the one that would be the biggest pain in the ass thing for me, so I cringed at that the most.  Screw any of that up, and back in the can he goes for the remainder of that 20, right?  

[finnlassie]

Holy macaroni. So glad the sentencing's been done. In a way, I feel like I can breathe again. Didn't realise how much this whole thing would sting me on a personal level.

[fundiefan]

Casey White was already serving a 75 year sentence when he was transferred to Lauderdale County to face capital murder charges, in person.

As far as sentencing that's at the discretion of the judge and guidelines. They can be consecutive or concurrent.

Edited May 27, 2022 by fundiefan

[Antimony]

10 minutes ago, Freejin said:

Do they appear in court for trial or are the videoed in?

Could be either. Its interesting though because there's a matter of transit and change of clothes. Brian Stevensons book Just Mercy touches on this I think. (Havent read it in a while, but I think...) You have a right to appear in court in standard clothes for a trial because to be forced to do so with a prison uniform could be a matter of prejudice. The logistics of prison transit and clothing swapping can be, well, obnoxious.

Video is going to be more and more common now, I think, because COVID.