Accused FLDS Rapist Gets 30 Days

Accused FLDS Rapist Gets 30 Days

www.newser.com

A member of a breakaway Mormon polygamy sect who admitted having sex with his child bride will serve just 30 days in jail as part of a Utah plea deal.

Allen Steed was initially charged with first-degree felony rape for bedding his 14-year-old first cousin. He could have faced life in prison if convicted.

Steed's one-time bride lashed the "magnitude of the scars" she will always grapple with, but said she believes Steed was also "a victim" of Jeffs and his power, reports ABC News.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Accused FLDS Teen Rapist Gets Slap on Wrist

So - Is he or is he not (also) a victim?

The rapist accuses FDLS (then) leader Warren Jeffs, that he was ‘victimized’ by Jeffs.

But that didn’t stop him from raping his cousin.

Where are the lines here?

They were 'married' - against her will. She was 14, he, her husband, 19.

Their ‘church’ sanctioned the marriage.

So he gets 30 days and she gets a lifetime of scars.

Lots of gray areas here.

I’ve always been one that rape is rape and I tend to lean that way in this case too. But, I’ve also got an open mind.

What say you?


www.newser.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

She seems content with the verdict so I think it is fair for her to decide. You have to understand the culture that led them to this. It's not like a 19 year old went out found a 14 year old and raped her. He believed she was his wife and was doing his religious duty etc. so in a way he is a victim too. To us it all sounds sick and disgusting but it wasn't long ago in this country that 14 year olds being married was uncommon religious or not.

Also she begged to be released from the marraige so she did not flat out refuse to take vows. She didn't want to marry but did it thinking it was religious duty also. it part of the culture she grew up in.

reply to post by silo13


What a poor excuse..They told me it was OK..
The guy's 19 not 9.He knows right from wrong..

I'd accept the 30 days as long as it's in a cell with "Big Bubba"...
"Bend over and pick up my soap pretty boy"...

My thoughts on this, should anyone care much what they are:

First, rape IS rape, and only courts and rapists cant really tell the difference it would seem. Alot is made in the west about how our religious practices are not as barbaric, demeaning to the young, the female blah blah, blah blah... Its horse crap, thats all that chatter is. Its not as if you can believe that this is an isolated incident.
Second, none of this would be going on, if there werent a cult full of blaspheming heretics milling about taking umpteen brides of varying degrees of sexual awareness, and legality, and doing it all in the name of God. Personaly, I think the behaviour of the entire church in this matter is cause for investigation, and for a body to be set up to study the specific threat to young people in a polygamic cultural setting. I would have thought that this particular occurrance might not be as rare as we would like to believe.
Lastly, wether married or not, the law is the law. For instance, there is a law against hacking off peoples hands, and murdering ones wife. If a Muslim in the US cuts a mans hands off for stealing, or murders his wife for cheating, he WILL face the most serious penalties . I see no difference here, save for that the girl this man has damaged for life, was innocent .

reply to post by TrueBrit


Hi - I have to admit I lean to your opinions in a big way.

It's one of the thing I loath about child molestation/rape - the ones who scream 'but they did it to me too'... Well look you freaking pedophile, IF 'they' did it to YOU then you should be the very LAST person on earth to turn around and commit the same crime! You KNOW the pain, the fear, the nightmares...etc.

So yes, the young man (though I use the term man loosely) - if he REALLY LOVED HIS WIFE - should never have touched her. If he was nothing more than a rapist he'd of let her alone.

It's rape - and there is no excuse for him getting such a light sentence.

peace

reply to post by silo13

So he gets 30 days and she gets a lifetime of scars.

I think she was going to have a lifetime of scars growing up in this environment with or without the underage sex.

I am on the other side of the fence from Silo, and I usually argue that "rape" should be much more narrowly defined. This is one of those cases that I would definitely NOT call rape, because she married him, in their church, and this was acceptable practice in their community.

Still, I think the 30 day sentence is appropriate, maybe even a little bit soft considering the whole situation. If she was an unwilling bride, then the crimes started right there. She should never have been pressured or forced into the marriage, especially to a first cousin.

So, all in all, I think this case sounds pretty appropriate, my only issue is with calling it "rape" when I don't believe it was. I have heard of recent cases where 15 and 16 year olds are getting in trouble for "child pornography" because they have naked pictures of their 15 and 16 year old girlfriends? Technically I guess it is true, but it is obviously wrong to make it a crime to have a naked picture of your girlfriend? Our sex laws are all wobble-geared and misaligned, but I don't have a good solution to offer.

reply to post by getreadyalready


You've got some valid points.

But don't forget - rape is still rape if she says 'NO!' -married or not.

On reflection do I think the sentence is light? Yes, but I'm not calling or a lifetime behind bars either.

peace

reply to post by silo13


Not rape.
The Virgin Mother of Christ was only 13 when she got married to Joseph.

You are correct, this is a very interesting topic for discussion.

Nowhere in the article is there a precision as to whether this is a case of:

"rape, rape", that is forcefully having sexual relations against someone's will. In which case the penalty is far too lenient in my opinion.
or
statutory rape, where consensual sex involving a person under the age of consent is not condoned by the parents. In which case the discussion becomes much more complex.

If this is, in fact, statutory rape, than the whole argument of the responsibility of the parents allowing their children to be involved in such "questionable" organizations becomes the core of the matter.

Who is to decide what is right? I'm sure the members of the FLDS are convinced that they are not committing crimes. (Unless, of course, the whole "cult" is just a way to justify pedophaelia in the first place, which is probably for another thread entirely.)

Should the state step in to override parental decisions?

Very interesting discussion indeed. I must admit that I'm somewhat on the fence with this whole thing.

the Billmeister

People have been raping and murdering the world over for a ticket to the stairway to heaven, from about the time the concept of heaven was first invented.

Some people are going to think that's an anti-religious statement, but it's just an observation, that people sold on the concept of heavenly rewards through a path of doing what God wants, as laid out by a prophet or disciple will do just about anything in order to gain that eternal reward.

How do you overcome that in the minds of the faithful? I don't think anyone has a clue, and while sending some religious fanatics and extremists to jail might make some of us feel good then, I think it pays to remember that in religions that are all based around martyrs, that jail, sacrifice and even death, is often seen as a way to please God by staying true to what some people do believe are God's principles and what God wants.

All religions either in turn, suggest, program, or down right attempt to totally brainwash people into accepting on faith certain things, with kudos handed out for accepting on faith those things that there is not only no evidence for but a proponderance of evidence that contradicts it.

Such systems are bound to be abused. Was the girl a reluctant participant, most kids are at that age when it comes to doing anything that distrubts a fine balance of trying to figure out who they are and the angst ridden process of becoming 'grown up' in this world.

She didn't runaway though, and a lot of kids at that age will to escape a fate that they really are opposed to.

Some people will take offence at that statement, but I ranaway at the same age to escape persecution and an unhappy fate controlled by others, and encountered plenty of other kids who did the same, older and younger.

The truth is whether robbing a child prematurely of their virginity, or leaving them 14 trillion dollars in debt with an out of control government at perpetual war, none of us tend to do our children any favors, and while many will be loathe to admit it, much of what is wrong with the world and causes conflict within it, is based on so many people looking for and believing in different paths to heaven.

The world will always be this way as long as we keep reacting to symptoms instead of the disease.

reply to post by Billmeister


You're going in the direction I hoped the thread would.

The gray area.

Do parents have the right to 'wed' their young daughters against their will?

We stand up and shout a rowdy 'NO NO NO!' when we read the same verse concerning our middle east friends - but not for the cults in the USA. (Until recently).

Then, as you pointed out, is this statutory when they're wed?

Or 'rape rape because the victim said NO!

The 19 year old 'husband'? Immature or not, a hearty pat on the back by his 'preacher' to 'do it like a man' or no - I cannot believe this boy/man didn't know what he was doing was wrong. But, I am not and will never be wearing those shoes, so, honestly, as much as I'd like to hang him, I have to stay objective.

What a conundrum!

peace

USING RELIGION AS AN EXCUSE WOW WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT IT. now if sex was agreed upon by boy and girl i would say no jail time at all but she said she didn't so i say even with a plea agreement he should of had to serve 5 years.

Originally posted by silo13
reply to post by Billmeister

 

Do parents have the right to 'wed' their young daughters against their will?

What a conundrum!

peace

A conundrum indeed.

If a child is brought up to follow a specific religious practice, it has been "imposed" on them, as it were.

I could, therefor, argue that they were never practicing "free will". And because free will is a necessary component of consent, I could argue that it is impossible for those that were "forced" into a religion to act consensually.

I know this may be pushing things slightly, but, when an individual is brought up within a specific religious doctrine, that is their basis for reality. If they are never given any access to "alternate" philosophies, they view the only practices they have been surrounded with from birth as "right" or "absolute truth".

If that is the case of these individuals, I do not believe that they have committed any crimes.

As for the religious leaders, and yes, even the parents, that is another, debatable, matter.

the Billmeister

Originally posted by proteus33
USING RELIGION AS AN EXCUSE WOW WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT IT. now if sex was agreed upon by boy and girl i would say no jail time at all but she said she didn't so i say even with a plea agreement he should of had to serve 5 years.

The article doesn't say she ever resisted or said no. It only states that she didn't want to get married, and she begged the cult leader to not endorse the marriage, but he convinced her to get married and to have sexual relations with her husband. In my opinion, if she was "convinced" by the religious leader, then by the time she got to her husband, she was willing.

Perhaps the husband even respected her wishes and allowed her to leave to consult the religious leader. When she returned and she was willing, then he did his marital duty, just as she did. I am not saying it is right, but I can't see how it could possibly constitute rape. I believe the crime was being coerced into the marriage, and that crime belonged to the religious leader, not the husband.

reply to post by getreadyalready


reply to post by getreadyalready


I think what a lot of people have a hard time understanding because 'sex' is involved in these situations, is that the lifestyle these people are living is not 'all about sex', meaning that's not the allure of it.

What it is about is all about what they percieve as a path to God as put forth by Joseph Smith.

All Mormons were originally poligymists (Go forth and propogate) but did away with the practice in order for Utah to gain statehood. In other words they sold out some of the core principles of the religion in order to have the priveleges that are presumed to come with citizenship.

A small number of Mormons basically then split with the main church and Mormons refer to these Mormons who practice Poligamy as 'Jack Mormons'.

The Jack Mormons see themselves as the purists and the faithful, the ones who will actually gain the promise of Heaven because they actually held true to their scriptures despite societal pressures and penalties.

What these people aren't doing with their teen age brides brought up to obey and worship men in general, is prostitute them, shoot porno movies with them, or set up BDSM dungeons with them as hostesses.

What they are doing is living a large family oriented communal lifestyle, with lots of children, and lots of mothers to watch out for and rear them, in accordance with the man's ability to provide financially and physically for their upbringing, while mixing in a whole lot of prayer, church, and a pious lifestyle that would drive Proto nuts!

I think it's a mistake to charachterize these people as 'sex fiends' just because so many of us are hung up and fixated on sex in a repressed way.

This is just their lifestyle, it's a lifestyle that dates back to the mid 1800's in this country, based on practices that Joseph Smith identified as being ancient when he became the prophet of the Mormon religion.

Brought up in such a community, it would be as natural to someone indoctrinated in it that way as McDonald's and Tatoos are for today's mainstream youth.

It really is just a by product of people who believe heavenly awards await those who live their lives a certain way.

I can respect people who will stick with their core values in the face of government interference and societal constructs.

If more people could and did the world would probably not be such a screwed up place, where we are worried more about how everyone else is living while neglecting the quality of our own lives in the process.

I do not believe it is rape. If the girl is willing and the parents consent, then how can society decide it is not proper. The state should stay out of it. A girl becomes sexually mature when she is able to have children. Nature decides that. Nature may detect something in the environment that could result in an early death. There may be something that accelerates the maturity process and nature wants those genes passed on. Some people will say she is not mentally mature, but how do you test for that? What if she is mentally and psychologically mature at age 6? If the girl and parents agree, then arbitrary age restrictions should not be a part of it.