Josh Duggar charged with Receipt/Possession Child Sexual Abuse Material, 29 April 2021 #2

[BeckyF]

This case was from 2016/ 2017 but the accused plead guilty as part of a plea deal and was sentenced to 51 -63 months in prison. I thought I’d post this here since other articles about Josh’s arrest say he could face 20 years.
Former Washington U. dean of students, known as 'MOperv' online, headed to prison for child

ETA that this guy was also facing 20 years.

 

[everybodhi]

I hope someone with more legal knowhow than me chimes in! I was personally confused by the distinction until it was explained to me on another site in terms of possession = we can prove you have it and receiving = we can prove how you got it. And that makes sense to me, but I have no clue how that practically works within the legal system.

I do think receiving is considered more severe legally because it has a mandatory minimum for sentencing and possession doesn't. MOO

The findings in this report by the US Sentencing Commission were that judges and prosecutors often feel the mandatory sentences are too long so the discrepancy in charges are applied unevenly to reduce time served.
Also an interesting statistic, 80% of offenders are white.

“Although Commission analysis has demonstrated that there is little meaningful distinction between the conduct involved in receipt and possession offenses, the average sentence for offenders convicted of a receipt offense, which carries a five- year mandatory minimum penalty, is substantially longer than the average sentence for offenders convicted of a possession offense, which carries no mandatory minimum penalty.”

Mandatory Minimum Penalties for sex offenses in the federal Criminal Justice System

 

[everybodhi]

The four primary types of offenses (distribution, transportation, receipt, and possession) are set forth in Chapter 110 of Title 18 of the United States Code at 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251, 2252, 2252A, and 2260.

The statutes prohibit distribution, shipping, and transportation of child regardless of whether such activities have a commercial or non-commercial purpose (e.g., exchanging child through “peer-to-peer” Internet file-sharing programs).

The offense of receipt requires a defendant’s knowledge that he is coming into possession of child at the time that the image is received.

That a defendant knowingly possesses child —a lesser-included offense of receipt—does not necessarily mean that the defendant previously knowingly received it.”

Mandatory Minimum Penalties for sex offenses in the federal Criminal Justice System

 

[mickey2942]

This case was from 2016/ 2017 but the accused plead guilty as part of a plea deal and was sentenced to 51 -63 months in prison. I thought I’d post this here since other articles about Josh’s arrest say he could face 20 years.
Former Washington U. dean of students, known as 'MOperv' online, headed to prison for child

ETA that this guy was also facing 20 years.

So, if convicted of the minimum amount of time, can the offender also get released early and serve the rest of the time on probation?

That is probably why the judge stipulated Duggar could be with his children if Anna was also there.

I bet Anna Duggar and her children will be moving soon. The shed she currently lives in on the Duggar property is listed as same address as the main Duggar house, so if Josh Duggar went there, he would violate parole. Being in proximity to other children, siblings, neice, nephews.

There must have been a lot of slick maneuvering with the legal networking to allow Josh Duggar the latitude to be around his own children with his wife as "supervision". That disgusts me. So much for protecting children. The man had CSAM for toddlers, and he has children that age! And he is allowed to be with them?! Plus a history of being a predator?! Outrageous.

 

[Amonet]

Some of the stuff he was downloading is years old and people are in jail because of it, but because people like him keep downloading it off the dark web, and sharing it, it is still in circulation. He is one of the ones keeping it going and he deserves the full force of the law.

I think it's also concerning in a different way if an individual can get their 'jollies' from watching a child suffering. Normal people want to avoid the suffering of children, they don't seek it out and get off on it. I personally think that's why there's such a high re-offence rate in this sector, as the individuals don't feel the same way as the rest of us about the pain of children, they don't feel it's something that children need protection from, and instead they can 'enjoy' it. It's vile, but it says something about that individual, it's not just about the event that got filmed however long ago.

 

[Ontario Mom]

MOO it’s nature vs nurture in Josh’s case. It’s both. A kid with his personality traits was raised in this sexually repressive atmosphere where virtually everything is a sin to the cult he was raised in, yet the parents flaunted their sex life in front of their children. What a twisted message that sent.

ETA, I’m not making excuses for him. There are none. Just musing over what could’ve made him this way.

His own evil lust, according to James 1:14 but I agree, it's both nature and nurture in his case. It just fanned the flames. And clearly, he was enjoying it far too much, and had all sorts of folks make excuses for him, for him to ever be confronted properly, and change his ways. Kind of the perfect storm to create a sexual deviant.

jmo

 

[BeckyF]

I think it's also concerning in a different way if an individual can get their 'jollies' from watching a child suffering. Normal people want to avoid the suffering of children, they don't seek it out and get off on it. I personally think that's why there's such a high re-offence rate in this sector, as the individuals don't feel the same way as the rest of us about the pain of children, they don't feel it's something that children need protection from, and instead they can 'enjoy' it. It's vile, but it says something about that individual, it's not just about the event that got filmed however long ago.

Agree completely. All aspects of looking at this filth are horrible but to get pleasure from viewing the suffering of children is so way beyond evil.

 

[JDough]

I think it's also concerning in a different way if an individual can get their 'jollies' from watching a child suffering. Normal people want to avoid the suffering of children, they don't seek it out and get off on it. I personally think that's why there's such a high re-offence rate in this sector, as the individuals don't feel the same way as the rest of us about the pain of children, they don't feel it's something that children need protection from, and instead they can 'enjoy' it. It's vile, but it says something about that individual, it's not just about the event that got filmed however long ago.

I have to wonder if these offenders even correlate that they are witnessing a child suffering? Do their selfish minds allow them to view it this way? I will NEVER understand how a grown man can become aroused by children. It makes me mad enough to spit! Knowing that the majority of them can never be rehabilitated makes me even madder. They are a vile danger to society.

 

[Zella]

I have to wonder if these offenders even correlate that they are witnessing a child suffering? Do their selfish minds allow them to view it this way?

Unfortunately, I think that is exactly the appeal to them. It's not an issue of being ignorant or desensitized to the suffering they are watching--that suffering is why they are watching it. They enjoy it.

 

[Amonet]

I have to wonder if these offenders even correlate that they are witnessing a child suffering? Do their selfish minds allow them to view it this way? I will NEVER understand how a grown man can become aroused by children. It makes me mad enough to spit! Knowing that the majority of them can never be rehabilitated makes me even madder. They are a vile danger to society.

The thing is, even in Josh's teenage offences, he was putting his desires and curiosity above the comfort of the girls. And this material is again putting his desires and curiosity above the pain and suffering of those little children.

So if he can do this in these two situations, so many years apart, yes, I would seriously question where his boundaries are in other scenarios in life, including in the home or in the homes of other people who have young children.

<modsnip>

 

[mickey2942]

I don't see how any of Josh's juvenile issues can be of any use in the federal case pending against him. He was never charged.

Or would they have any judicial weight in this case?

 

[Zella]

I don't see how any of Josh's juvenile issues can be of any use in the federal case pending against him. He was never charged.

Or would they have any judicial weight in this case?

From what I read of the bond hearing, the judge acknowledged that ordinarily it wouldn't be talked about in the hearing, but since the family had publicly acknowledged that Josh had molested his sisters, they couldn't pretend like those facts weren't known. And the judge did mention that history concerned her.

That being said, I doubt they would be allowed to talk about that during the trial itself. MOO

 

[SweaterGirl]

Well my post was removed for Gothardism focus. So be it! My main point was just to show how Josh has never been, or been expected to be, in charge of creating or enforcing his own boundaries. I do find it very hard to discuss Josh's situation without references to the full context of his past and present realities. My apologies for overstepping.

 

[Shamrock1]

I don't see how any of Josh's juvenile issues can be of any use in the federal case pending against him. He was never charged.

Or would they have any judicial weight in this case?

That is true. But he’s admitted to them publicly, as have the parents and sisters/victims.

In general, prior bad acts (including convictions) are not admissible. That’s Federal Rule of Evidence 404, and it’s fascinating stuff. Lots of exceptions. But - in general - it wouldn’t be permissible to show evidence of prior molestation and use it to demonstrate that he downloaded CSAM. Lots of exceptions, though.

 

[mickey2942]

That is true. But he’s admitted to them publicly, as have the parents and sisters/victims.

In general, prior bad acts (including convictions) are not admissible. That’s Federal Rule of Evidence 404, and it’s fascinating stuff. Lots of exceptions. But - in general - it wouldn’t be permissible to show evidence of prior molestation and use it to demonstrate that he downloaded CSAM. Lots of exceptions, though.

Yes, and generally, acts performed as a juvenile are not held against a person charged with a separate crime as an adult. CSAM...slippery slope on this one.

 

[Scrapper18]

I have to wonder if these offenders even correlate that they are witnessing a child suffering? Do their selfish minds allow them to view it this way? I will NEVER understand how a grown man can become aroused by children. It makes me mad enough to spit! Knowing that the majority of them can never be rehabilitated makes me even madder. They are a vile danger to society.

I think the internet and digital age has contributed to so much evil. It is so easy for these creeps to hide behind a screen and live out their evil desires. And no, I don’t think they ever even think about that poor child on the other end and what they are going through. JMO

 

[Arkay]

That is true. But he’s admitted to them publicly, as have the parents and sisters/victims.

In general, prior bad acts (including convictions) are not admissible. That’s Federal Rule of Evidence 404, and it’s fascinating stuff. Lots of exceptions. But - in general - it wouldn’t be permissible to show evidence of prior molestation and use it to demonstrate that he downloaded CSAM. Lots of exceptions, though.

Yes, and generally, acts performed as a juvenile are not held against a person charged with a separate crime as an adult. CSAM...slippery slope on this one.

So, I know next to nothing about the law, and less than nothing about the law in Arkansas.

I was under the impression that something may be allowed in certain cases if it goes towards establishing a pattern of behavior. Is the situation here, besides that he wasn't charged as a juvenile, that there isn't an exact pattern, per se?

First instance (to our knowledge): physically assaulting his sisters, allegedly as a hormonal boy with a curiosity about the female body, and lots of female bodies conveniently under his roof?**

Second instance (to our knowledge): an adult, married man, with an allowable outlet for sex, is a disclosed user of Ashley Madison? Putrid and worthy of a divorce, but not illegal?

Third instance (to our knowledge): an adult, married man, with an allowable outlet for sex, reprehensibly, disgustingly, nauseatingly, incomprehensibly and illegally seeking out child sexual abuse material on the Internet? From sources that seem difficult to have accessed accidentally and which required exertion on his part to obtain?

These, legally, do not form a pattern, I guess? Other than the pattern of being sex-obsessed since his youth and acting on it in ways that are illegal/immoral and cause pain to his loved ones?

** although one of his victims being only FIVE makes this a magnitude more horrible

 

[watcher9]

I don't want to click on much of anything in this thread. I wouldn't want anything showing up on my computer.
I wondered if Josh would claim it was fake material. Nowadays, they can digitalize videos so real looking, you wouldn't be able to tell if it was fake or not. What if some of the CSAM Josh had downloaded was fake? Did a search. It doesn't matter. It's still illegal. This warning popped up on the search page. That was enough for me.

Warning
Child sexual abuse imagery is illegal
If you see sexually explicit images or videos of minors on the web, please report it below. Learn more
Report at report.cybertip.org
Call hotline: 1-800-843-5678

 

[nyvictoria]

What also really disturbs me about this is that Josh is still permitted to see his children. I don’t care who’s “watching over” him while he visits with them. There’s no way he should be allowed to see his kids anywhere other than a supervised visitation site. If they were my kids, he wouldn’t get near them.

 

[Shamrock1]

I don't want to click on much of anything in this thread. I wouldn't want anything showing up on my computer.
I wondered if Josh would claim it was fake material. Nowadays, they can digitalize videos so real looking, you wouldn't be able to tell if it was fake or not. What if some of the CSAM Josh had downloaded was fake? Did a search. It doesn't matter. It's still illegal. This warning popped up on the search page. That was enough for me.

Warning
Child sexual abuse imagery is illegal
If you see sexually explicit images or videos of minors on the web, please report it below. Learn more
Report at report.cybertip.org
Call hotline: 1-800-843-5678

He downloaded the CSAM titled DD - that’s something real that one has to search for. I don’t know if that kind of warning shows up using TOR? I also don’t know if there’s been a definitive ruling on whether fakes qualify as CSAM (my semi-educated guess is that fictional writings of abuse may fall under 1st Amendment?).