There's no doubt that victims are re-victimized by the system. The state or federal system is only concerned with prosecuting the offender. The needs of the person harmed are not really relevant. Not really.

Its hard to believe how much the system takes advantage of people simply to get a conviction. Its not about what's good for people. Its about getting the conviction. And if people have to be re-victimized to obtain that purpose, well, so what. Happens every day. Doesn't make it right.

I was particularly glad to hear the two sisters openly state that they are victims, unlike their parents who wanted to down play things for the sake of Josh who never got counseling, and evaded all degrees of necessary legal and non-legal accountability.

I was particularly disgusted by the remarks of Josh's mom who minimized what Josh did by claiming it was not so bad since Josh purportedly fondled the female children with their clothes on while they were sleeping so they did not know anyway, as if that somehow makes what Josh did less of a criminal act. It was a major slap in the face to victims across the world and the suffering they endure on a person and individual level.

The interview was simply a pre-scripted effort to do damage control considering that TLC has removed their show from the air with multiple sponsors pulling their add's, the public outcry over what Josh and his parents did, and the political ambitions this family, have especially the dad, that it was impossible to see any genuine sincerity of remorse by the parents their part in things.

Victims are certainly re-victimized by the system and the media, but they are also re-victimized by their perpetrator's who are family members failing or refusing to take genuine ownership over what they did to their sibling or child. Moreover, they are re-victimized by those advocating against sex offender laws and registration, failing or refusing to hold the perpetrator accountable for the criminal act(s) they committed.

I have to agree with public comments that I have read and express outrage over Josh's mom and dad not taking immediate proper steps to protect their children from Josh. I mean for crying out loud, it took Josh telling his parents three times what he was doing to his sisters before his parents did anything - and oh yeah, lets not forget that what they did was take Josh to see a cop who is now serving 56 years in prison for child porn.

It is one thing to advocate against unnecessary laws, or laws that do more harm than good, but it is an entirely different thing to become complacent to or condone what sex offenders do on the notion that because the laws are bad, based on individual opinion, we should simple ignore what those like Josh do in committing sex crimes. That to me, is the greatest way victims are re-victimized.

Victims are certainly re-victimized by the system and the media, but they are also re-victimized by their perpetrator's who are family members failing or refusing to take genuine ownership over what they did to their sibling or child. Moreover, they are re-victimized by those advocating against sex offender laws and registration, failing or refusing to hold the perpetrator accountable for the criminal act(s) they committed.

Legal, I think most people that have blog about this crime never said they condone his actions. Advocating for changes in bad laws is not re-victimizing victims, most people that want changes are saying once you have served your time, completed treatment you should be allowed to be off the registry and move on with life. The registry as it is now does not protect anyone, all it does is shame you and the family for life. Maybe the girls have actually forgiven their brother or stronger than you think and refuse to live the rest of their life as a victim. You are mixing words that people write, seems to me you want hell brought down on everyone just because the law was not involved in the way you wish. There is true forgivingness in life or should be.

What josh did was wrong, his family hid it either to protect themselves or the children from the terror that would come, I do not know which, but stop trying to compare advocating for truly bad laws is re-victimizing victims, that is just not the case.

buildingupslow

You are correct that advocating for better laws does not re-victimize victims and I never wrote such in my post above. What I did right is that:

"Victims are certainly re-victimized by the system and the media, but they are also re-victimized by their perpetrator's who are family members failing or refusing to take genuine ownership over what they did to their sibling or child. Moreover, they are re-victimized by those advocating against sex offender laws and registration, failing or refusing to hold the perpetrator accountable for the criminal act(s) they committed."

The Duggar parents did not conceal Josh's actions to "protect their children" as you suggest, but to protect Josh at the expense of their four daughters and their babysitter whom Josh also molested. Michelle Duggar spared no hesitation giving statements in the interview to trivialize what Josh did to his victims.

No, it is not that I want "hell brought down on everyone just because the law was not involved in the way you wish" and please do not put words into my post that I do not write. I am all for positive changes that address the harms that sex offender laws create, but what I am not for is concealing sex crimes and certainly not if one wants to have any degree of credibility in advocating for needed changes.

Remember, I am a guardian of a convicted sex offender so I live these laws no differently than he does because I am bound by the same laws, as if I am a sex offender as well when I am not. So I see the harms they cause to people and I advocate against those that cause harms. Not all sex crime laws are bad. I am also a survivor of 12 years of childhood rape -- how's that for irony - a victim who is bound by the same laws as if I were a sex offender. I see both sides of the coin.

I'm a survivor of CSA and I have a husband who is a sex offender (albeit falsely accused) so yeah, I have had to see how these laws work (or don't) and have in many ways been re-victimized by the system. Failed me twice over. You might think the mom downplayed things but I kinda see her point. What hee did was wrong but it's a far cry from the type of abuse I endured which was much worse.

So much has been said about the Duggar minimizing Josh's actions. And of course what he did was absolutely wrong. But are there not degrees of every crime, not just sex offenses? Isn't forcible rape by a father much worse than a brother's inappropriate touching?

As a survivor of childhood rape and on one level, I agree that rape is more severe than fondling, but that said, it is an individual thing because a child fondled can sustain severe trauma, as well. However, Josh's mom made comments specific to Josh's conduct and not that of Josh raping a child, which the reports do not suggest he did.

Now, it is too late for Josh to be held criminally accountable, which gives all the more importance for his family to take the high road and hold Josh accountable with no uncertain terms and efforts to minimize what he did even if and where the two sisters who spoke in the interview forgave him. But that is not what happened. Rather, his mom minimized what Josh did, to do damage control, at the expense of her four daughters and the babysitter and she took no real responsibility for not doing what she needed to do to actually protect her daughters and others from Josh.

Again, Josh did not commit a sex crime once, but rather, he did this five times and he did this after telling on himself. This means Josh knew right from wrong when he committed these sex crimes. His parents waited until the third time that Josh told on himself that he committed his sex crimes to take any alleged action to address the issues. That is not actions of a responsible parent who is protecting their children, but a parent who does not care and is not a fit parent by virtue of allowing a confessed sex offender to re-offend repeatedly.

Legal, the parents tried everything to get Josh to stop without involving LE (cause as we all know, it would have damaged him for the rest of his life). When their own efforts were mot effective, they took him to the police station, and then got everyone into counseling.

If it was your children, and knowing what you know, would you have turned your own child over to the police? Or would you do the same as the Duggars, and try to deal with it in house?

I know my daughter was more traumatized by going through the legal proceedings, than the abuse she suffered. She sees now why many sexual abuse cases are not reported, especially when the news exploits your pain.

Well teenagers do repeatedly do things that they know are wrong. Engaging in high risk behaviors is a hallmark of the teenage years. AND many of those behaviors do revolve around sex. And in this case specifically, he was strictly forbidden from any normal sexual experimentation because of the parents extreme religious beliefs.

Since it truly does seem to be something he outgrew or whatever you want to call it, and there is no indication that he's an abuser today or even a pedophile....could it really have been that he was a messed up teenager who did get help and whose victims got help as well and if so, would the criminal justice system really have helped the situation in any way?

@ ThoughtAsWe -- No, the parents did not try to do everything they could and while they purported that they tried to get him counseling no counseling was given. And the cop they took him to, to have a chat with Josh turns out was engaged in child sex crimes himself and is doing 56 years in prison.

Josh was a repeat offender and his parents knew and admit knowing this fact. His parents also knew that they had a legal obligation to ensure that Josh did not have any access to other children whom he could make victims of his sex crime behavior.

" they had a legal obligation" - where does it say that? In retrospect, did they handle it perfectly? Probably not, but what are the options? Throwing one of their children to the wolves? And how were they to know the cop would end up in jail?

quote @ThoughtAsWek - "I know my daughter was more traumatized by going through the legal proceedings, than the abuse she suffered. She sees now why many sexual abuse cases are not reported, especially when the news exploits your pain." - I think that says it all. And that is how traumatic it is for the victim. Not to mention the child (and that is what he was) accused.

I would have done the same or similar as the Duggars, knowing what I know now. Except I most decidedly would not have made a career out of being morally superior. Especially after this episode. For that I am not too upset about this sh*t storm. Can't stand hypocrites.

Where does it say they have a legal obligation to protect their children -- try the law. Every state has laws that require those having custody of children to protect them. If you know your child is being victimized by a sex crime from another then you have a legal obligation to protect the child from being victimized. If you do not protect them, then you are endangering your child.

Even assuming argumentatively that it is not an option to go to the police to have charges filed against your child, you can still have your child placed in a facility to get therapy, have the supervision needed, and ensure the safety of those living in the house. The Duggars did not pursue this viable avenue.

At the time in their state, parents were not mandated reporters. And I would not think the state would do what's best for my kids.

@LegalGuardian It appears that Josh Duggar's victims and Josh himself all received professional counseling from a licensed therapist and according to his sisters Josh paid for his own counseling presumably with money he earned while he was at "labor camp". Many of the things both the parents and the victims describe as being done to protect the other siblings from further harm read like a text book safety plan. It's also clear to me just by the way the rest of the family describes things and the words they use when talking about Josh's offending that there's no doubt professional help was involved. The only real difference from your viable option was when Josh was removed from the home for a time he wasn't placed in a facility.

I would not tell on my son for something like that. Boys are curious and have always done these type of things. I remember spin the bottle games and guys had hands all over trying to touch everywhere. We just slapped the heck out of them, but calling the police, of course not. Now if there was a rape, of course we would, but not boys being stupid. We had to wear dresses when I was in elem and middle school and boys were terrible looking under our dresses whenever they could. I don't even remember them getting into trouble.