Josh and Anna 53: 151 Month Sentence

[FiveAcres]

8 minutes ago, JermajestyDuggar said:

I have a feeling everyone still at home is staying far away from JB right now. 

And it still pisses me off that he put the responsibility for managing his anger on his children. It's the classic tactic of an abuser.

[Jackie3]

50 minutes ago, HereticHick said:

https://prisonerresource.com/inmate-work-assignments-federal-prison/ 

"Generally speaking, most federal inmates can expect to earn between $10 and $25 per month, with the lower end of this scale being far more common."

This reminds me of the first Duggar book. JB says he paid the kids three cents per chore. 

[Alisamer]

Wow, the Dillards' statement is pretty masterful, there. I hope the other family members read it. You can love and support his family without in any way condoning what he did. I also hope the M kids come across that statement at some point and remember that aunt Jill and uncle Derrick live a bit differently than they do, but are still professing Christians and still love and care for them. I don't expect anything of the Dillards, but it would be reassuring for the M kids to have someone, anyone, they feel they can call up and talk to if they have questions or feelings they know they can't freely admit to mama or the grandparents. 

Even just the fact that Jill is open about having been helped by therapy might be a good thing for them to hear. They all could seriously use some therapy and I hope they feel able to get that as young adults if not before. 

I am very glad they included the "no unsupervised contact with minors" part in his probation. It sounds like the judge did take into account the fact that the family's claim to fame is popping out babies and that he's the oldest of a ton of kids, so he's going to be frequently in the presence of young children for the forseeable future. He will most likely have grandchildren before he is released, I would think, unless Mack takes after aunt Jana instead of the rest of the fam. 

I feel for Josh and Anna's kids. They don't deserve any of this mess, and are in a family where they are highly unlikely to get any help whatsoever if they struggle. The judge has done more with this sentence to protect those kids than anyone in their family has ever done. 

I think the best thing Anna could do right now is get herself into a support group for spouses of incarcerated people, find some help and support for the kids, and consider finding a way to be as independent of the Duggars as she can manage. I don't think she'll do that.

I do, still, think that maybe, after he's been gone a full decade and she has no tiny children around and life has come to some sort of normal... and then suddenly there's the prospect of Josh being released and her having to suddenly cater to him again after years without him, she might balk. 12 years is a LONG time to get used to life, to have it suddenly upended with having your manchild husband who is legally required to be supervised at all times around your kids dumped back into it. 

And, I think if at any point during his incarceration Anna develops a friendship with a fundie man who is unmarried, she may very well decide a divorce is in order. I don't see her divorcing Josh and becoming independent, but I could see her finding a casual friendship develop into more and once another guy is lined up, taking the opportunity to move on. I don't think she'll actively look for such a thing, though, and she won't cheat. But if that widower at church with the nice smile becomes a friend, she might take the opportunity. No one would likely blame her much, Josh is a monster. 

I really feel like Anna is just coming down from being up in the air now that she has an idea how long Josh will be gone, and things can change a lot in a decade. Imagine if 12 years ago someone proclaimed that Derrick Dillard would go to law school, Jill would get a nose piercing, wear pants, go to therapy, and drink an occasional cocktail, and their kids would go to public school? There's no telling what will happen with any of the Duggars over the next decade. Except Josh, we know where he'll be.  

[Giraffe]

@AussieKrissy touched on this briefly with the Australia perspective but I haven’t seen anyone bring up the US rules on it - are his kids even permitted to visit when they’re under 18 because of what he’s convicted of?

[libgirl2]

2 minutes ago, Giraffe said:

@AussieKrissy touched on this briefly with the Australia perspective but I haven’t seen anyone bring up the US rules on it - are his kids even permitted to visit when they’re under 18 because of what he’s convicted of?

I wonder about that too. 

[FluffySnowball]

Regarding JB, I just think that abusers (often times, but of course not always!) breed abusers. And JB definitely is an abuser (though likely not in the same way Josh is, but still an abuser nonetheless).  

[The Mother Dust]

Haven't been to FJ in a long while because RL has been kicking my butt, but had to come back on for this.  When Josh gets to the 85% mark of his prison sentence, when he would be eligible for early release if he has good behavior in prison, would he go in front of a parole board for that?  If so, would victims (or any other legitimate parties) be able to attend and object to his early release like in other cases?  Or is that not done in federal cases like this?

[Chocolatecheesecake]

I just heard about this sentence and must say, from my perspective 12.5 years is much more than I was expecting. I studied law in Austria and here the maximum sentence for Joshes offence would have been two years in prison. The maximum sentence for producing the materials Josh was accessing would be 10 years. I personally disagree with these penalty frames (I disagree with the penalty frame for most violent crimes in Austria). Maybe those of you, who are disappointed that he did not get the full 20 years, can take some comfort in knowing, that he still got much more time than he would have gotten in some other countries. 

Edited May 26, 2022 by Chocolatecheesecake

[Antimony]

10 hours ago, neuroticcat said:

Someone on Reddit with a friend inside the courtroom posted that one of the stipulations upon release was no adult porn since it might be a gateway to reoffend. Apparently the defense pushed back on this as a 1st amendment right, but the judge upheld it. 😂

Wonder what the wisdom booklets have to say about fighting for your right to porn. 🧐

This is actually a really bizarre legal question for me because....Jacobellis v. Ohio. The question was, what is obscene or pornographic? The case is the origin of the "I know it when I see it" litmus test for what is or is not pornographic content. (Other definitions given were...summarily bizarre and sometimes based on race, and honestly, a mess, but the case was in 1964, but you know. I feel like when you have judges counting the number of erections on a 1960s porno, we've really lost the plot here...Come on old timey judges!!)

But it begs the question. There are obviously things in the world that are clearly pornographic. You know it when you see it. But there are things that are questionable. I imagine that this ruling doesn't include erotica, so does it mean Josh can borrow Jill Rod's library of Amish Romance or pick up a copy of 50 Shades? What Harlequin publications are acceptable? Can he log onto Archive of Our Own and read Erotic Bible Fanfic (a real thing)?* Where does doujinshi fall into American Legal Definitions of Porn when they're subject to visual censorship in their original forms? Is The Lighthouse pornographic? Can Josh watch The Lighthouse? There are scenes Robert Eggers has made that have made me feel like more of a sinner than I would if I were at a literal strip club.  Is World of Kanako** off the table? Where is the line?

All of this really amounts to an intellectual exercise, because I am not hopeful enough to believe that Josh would read or watch a film with more emotional and visual complexity than a standard Kirk Cameron release but like, you get it. We've all kind of agreed as a society that it's unacceptable to watch Crazy Porn XXX Vol 19 in public, but we have also kind of agreed that you can read 50 Shades on the bus (if you're willing to subject yourself to that judgment, godspeed).

I think these are part of the reasons you can make a First Amendment argument, but there's the obvious answer that some rights are forfeit (2nd Amendment, Voting Rights, 13th Amendment) by a guilty verdict. I don't think they're the reason that Josh asked them to argue this, though. Obviously. 

*I mean, he can't log on to a computer, but you understand the question. 

**Don't watch World of Kanako unless you want a 2hr20m romp of nihilism that feels like a challenge against both Tarantino and Takahashi Miike. 

[FiveAcres]

6 minutes ago, Antimony said:

This is actually a really bizarre legal question for me because....Jacobellis v. Ohio. The question was, what is obscene or pornographic? The case is the origin of the "I know it when I see it" litmus test for what is or is not pornographic content. (Other definitions given were...summarily bizarre and sometimes based on race, and honestly, a mess, but the case was in 1964, but you know. I feel like when you have judges counting the number of erections on a 1960s porno, we've really lost the plot here...Come on old timey judges!!)

...

I think these are part of the reasons you can make a First Amendment argument, but there's the obvious answer that some rights are forfeit (2nd Amendment, Voting Rights, 13th Amendment) by a guilty verdict. I don't think they're the reason that Josh asked them to argue this, though. Obviously. 

 

I am not even sure where I draw the line between erotica and porn. However, I do know that the ability of all persons concerned being able to give informed consent to the acts and then actually giving it is pretty key. There is stuff that was considered mainstream "romance" that I read thirty years ago that makes me sick to my stomach when I recall it now.

 

[Antimony]

1 minute ago, FiveAcres said:

I am not even sure where I draw the line between erotica and porn. However, I do know that the ability of all persons concerned being able to give informed consent to the acts and then actually giving it is pretty key. There is stuff that was considered mainstream "romance" that I read thirty years ago that makes me sick to my stomach when I recall it now.

 

Certainly! I don't think it's a moral question and I think what you've given is a moral answer, but legally is a different beast. There are certainly publications from Harlequin and similar that I'm like, "Wow...gross...who greenlit this one?". But legally...???

(I don't actually read a lot of Romance but when I worked sending books to prisons, we got many requests for Romance which then led to me becoming an Expert in reading Book Jackets to find somtehing that fit the request, because we got many letters that were like, "I want a romance from a small town that has a softspoken love interest....etc etc" so then I would have to go through the Romance shelf looking for a cover that might project that image and speed reading the back. Some were just gushy and some had Fabio on the cover, pre-Goose-Incident, and some did not age well.)

[JermajestyDuggar]

1 hour ago, FiveAcres said:

And it still pisses me off that he put the responsibility for managing his anger on his children. It's the classic tactic of an abuser.

It’s a classic tactic of Gothard. I think abusers are drawn to these types of cult beliefs for a reason. A female is sexually abused? Blame her. A wife is cheated on? Blame her. A father gets angry? Blame the kids. 

[nausicaa]

I agree with others that 12.5 years is a good sentence. 

Crazy story but I recently matched with a guy on a dating website and we hit it off and exchanged numbers. I Googled his to discover he is on the sex offender registry. (If anyone was wondering how my dating life is, IT'S GOING GREAT 👍👍👍.)

He was arrested in 2018 for the full Josh Duggar. Multiple images of CSAM, very young children. He was caught when he uploaded some to a website. He was sentenced to five years at the end of 2018, but is apparently now out and hitting on women through Bumble. (Not sure if that's a violation of his parole. I just cancelled the date and blocked.)

Anyway, I'm glad Josh won't have the same chances. 

[JermajestyDuggar]

What Jason has to say today:

[luv2laugh]

2 minutes ago, JermajestyDuggar said:

What Jason has to say today:

I wonder how awkward things are between Anna and duggar siblings who believe he did it? 

[JermajestyDuggar]

6 minutes ago, luv2laugh said:

I wonder how awkward things are between Anna and duggar siblings who believe he did it? 

It’s funny because I can imagine all the awkwardness very easily. Because I have a large extended family and not everyone gets along. I just witnessed some family awkwardness at a family gathering this past weekend. I typically get along with everyone, but everyone knows who doesn’t get along with who. And it can be a little tense at times. But there hasn’t been a blow out in years. Thankfully. 

[Glasgowghirl]

I wasn’t expecting a statement like that from Jason. 

[JermajestyDuggar]

5 minutes ago, Glasgowghirl said:

I wasn’t expecting a statement like that from Jason. 

Jason was walking in with Joy yesterday right? If he’s on Joy’s side, I’m not terribly surprised. 

[CanadianMamam]

39 minutes ago, FiveAcres said:

I am not even sure where I draw the line between erotica and porn. However, I do know that the ability of all persons concerned being able to give informed consent to the acts and then actually giving it is pretty key. There is stuff that was considered mainstream "romance" that I read thirty years ago that makes me sick to my stomach when I recall it now.

 

I sometimes re-read old romances and they are kinda awful. My bff and I have discussed a blog or podcast where we discuss the content and how problematic it is now. 

Generally the law differentiates between written and video/photographic content (this comes up in terms of underage content), so I would guess that the ruling only applied to videos/photos. 

[nokidsmom]

1 hour ago, Alisamer said:

I do, still, think that maybe, after he's been gone a full decade and she has no tiny children around and life has come to some sort of normal... and then suddenly there's the prospect of Josh being released and her having to suddenly cater to him again after years without him, she might balk. 12 years is a LONG time to get used to life, to have it suddenly upended with having your manchild husband who is legally required to be supervised at all times around your kids dumped back into it. 

I think Anna will eventually develop a new normal where she will adjust to life without Josh only to find that his return will be more disruptive than welcomed.   She may not realize it until he's ready to come back and right now she's likely too angry at his conviction/sentencing to see that his absence might be easier on her than she thinks.   I mean, she's married to a guy who can't be honest or trusted anywhere with anything, and I can't imagine the anxiety that caused her even if she will never admit it which of course, she doesn't have to.  But I suspect she may know the difference. 

1 hour ago, Alisamer said:

And, I think if at any point during his incarceration Anna develops a friendship with a fundie man who is unmarried, she may very well decide a divorce is in order. I don't see her divorcing Josh and becoming independent, but I could see her finding a casual friendship develop into more and once another guy is lined up, taking the opportunity to move on. I don't think she'll actively look for such a thing, though, and she won't cheat. But if that widower at church with the nice smile becomes a friend, she might take the opportunity. No one would likely blame her much, Josh is a monster. 

I have thought of this.   Not that Anna would intend to cheat or seek any relationship but that she might make a friendship that starts out innocently enough and find that relationship developing.   Between time and distance from Josh and receiving friendship / kindness from another, she might find, in spite of herself, developing feelings which might make her reassess her relationship with Josh.    Or if Josh finds a relationship while in prison and decides to leave himself, that might spur her moving on as well.  

I am not convinced that Josh will return once he's out.    Away from his family's control, he might find more freedom in prison and might decide that he doesn't want life in the Duggar borg anymore.   At this point he really doesn't have much to lose as far as his family is concerned and might just decide to make a clear break and prison time might facilitate that. 

[CanadianMamam]

22 minutes ago, JermajestyDuggar said:

What Jason has to say today:

This is a good statement. I think the revelations about the meditation, particularly what was done to Joy was likely a big eye-opener for many of the middle brothers. Someone once called Joy a Howler In a Dress and I think that is a good description and it doesn't surprise me they are on her side (whatever that might be).

[SassyPants]

Every family has a person who goes rogue or who continues to get themselves into trouble despite unending support. Not saying that CSA is an every family occurrence, but no family is without its troubles. The problem we have here, and the lead prosecutor addressed it in his post sentencing interview, is that JB and M did not deal with the growing problems in a satisfactory manner along the way. Further, these parents went on to sell their wholesome family/values/beliefs/religion cult, to the public for fast and easy money. JB was a liar and he got away with it for a good long and financially profited in the process. All of this reinforced his already high level narcissism. Along the way JB also became a huge bully. He got what he wanted from everyone by being a bully. He even tried it in court, “I will not allow that”. Well, yesterday JB lost it all. He lost his good name (what was left of it), his easy earning potential, his money, his respect and the large, intact family he once coerced. I actually think JB has received just a big of a sentence as Josh, and frankly, HE DESERVED IT! 

Edited May 26, 2022 by SassyPants

[Freejin]

Just now, SassyPants said:

Every family has a person who goes rogue or who continues to get themselves into trouble despite unending support. Not saying that CSA is an every family occurrence, but no family is without its troubles. The problem we have here, and I the lead prosecutor addressed it in his post sentencing interview, is that JB and M did not deal with the growing problems in a satisfactory manner along the way. Further, these parents went on to sell their wholesome family/values/beliefs/religion cult, to the public for fast and easy money. JB was a liar and he got away with it for a good long and financially profited in the process. All of this reinforced his already high level narcissism. Along the way JB also became a huge bully. He got what he wanted from everyone by being a bully. He even tried it in court, “I will not allow that”. Well, yesterday JB lost it all. He lost his good name (what was left of it), his easy earning potential, his money, his respect and the large, intact family he once coerced. I actually think JB has received just a big of a sentence as Josh, and frankly, HE DESERVED IT! 

I hope so but I’m also concerned that this is a man who has been able to bounce back and rebrand himself several times before. Do you think it’s officially over now?

[JermajestyDuggar]

16 minutes ago, CanadianMamam said:

This is a good statement. I think the revelations about the meditation, particularly what was done to Joy was likely a big eye-opener for many of the middle brothers. Someone once called Joy a Howler In a Dress and I think that is a good description and it doesn't surprise me they are on her side (whatever that might be).

Joy was born in the middle of a bunch of boys so I wouldn’t be surprised if she felt closest to a lot of the middle boys and her sister mom. 

[Dandruff]

4 minutes ago, nausicaa said:

Crazy story but I recently matched with a guy on a dating website and we hit it off and exchanged numbers. I Googled his to discover he is on the sex offender registry. (If anyone was wondering how my dating life is, IT'S GOING GREAT 👍👍👍.)

He was arrested in 2018 for the full Josh Duggar. Multiple images of CSAM, very young children. He was caught when he uploaded some to a website. He was sentenced to five years at the end of 2018, but is apparently now out and hitting on women through Bumble. (Not sure if that's a violation of his parole. I just cancelled the date and blocked.)

Wow, that must have been very scary.

It reminds me of when Josh used Ashley Madison.  There was so much risk, given his position at the FRC and the family's need to portray Christian ethics for the $$s show, yet he went ahead with it.  Having a relationship with someone other than Anna was that important to him.  He was willing to spend money, use someone else's photo as part of an alias, date people who could - without much difficulty - figure out who he was, and do it while the show was in progress.  So what if everything could blow up?  It begged the question of what else he might he be capable of (and now we know).

18 minutes ago, JermajestyDuggar said:

What Jason has to say today:

How is ~12.5 years below the median and why does Jason think it fair to sentence Josh below the median?  I don't get it.  Is he trying to help JB feel better about all the money spent on lawyers?

Also, it's so good to know that Jason will love Josh no matter what, and that the main victims were his family.  What about the children in those images/videos?

I do give Jason some credit for trying.  I believe he's well-intentioned and probably trying to reassure those around him.  And yesterday must have been a jolt.  My sense is that he's trying to balance acknowledgement of the crime with the Christian image that the family has worked so hard to portray.  I expect to be seeing a lot more of that.  I think JB is going to try to get his good reputation back and, per usual, the (rest of the) kids will be expected to help.