Five Kids and Counting

I admit at the outset of this blog that I am not a fan of “19 Kids and Counting.”  Even before the most recent scandal involving Josh Duggar, I silently implored the public would stop encouraging, promoting and condoning what I perceived to be a grotesque exploitation of the family for financial gain.  It is unfortunate it took a serious situation like Josh Duggar’s sexual exploitation of five children (four of whom were his sisters) to stop the show from being aired.  It is even more unimaginable to me that large factions of the public are defending someone who is an unequivocal sexual predator and that TLC has not yet canceled the show outright.  I understand, to some degree, the general resistance to labeling someone who does not openly engage in sexually deviant acts a predator.  However, the reality is that all predators understand the importance of camouflage and very few predators show us what lies beneath an often unthreatening exterior.

Sexual predators camouflage themselves amongst the general population by being likeable and clean cut.  They train themselves to say the right things.  They prey on victims who are young, crazy, insecure and not credible.  They find a way to minimize their conduct and convince others of the same.  As a society, we are somewhat complicit in the sense that most people do not want to accept there are sexual deviants walking among us.  It is much easier for the human psyche to believe a predator cannot hide in plain sight.  Predators who are caught are not the ones who should scare us.  Rather, we should be fearful of those predators who are never caught or if they are caught, their conduct is minimized to such an extent they are not labeled for what they really are, like Josh Duggar.  

Jim Bob Duggar engaged in text book minimization during his defense of his son to Fox News correspondent Megyn Kelly.  Jim Bob stated “Again this was not rape or anything like that, it was touching someone over the clothes.  There were a couple times he touched someone under the clothes, for a few seconds.  Each time he told us crying. It was the third time that we decided we needed help.”  These three sentences clearly and effectively serve to minimize the seriousness of Josh Duggar’s criminal conduct.  For example, Jim Bob first tells us that it was not rape.  Technically, this is accurate as the conduct is more properly characterized in legal parlance as abusive sexual contact or sexual assault.  However, the fact Josh did not commit a more serious crime does not somehow negate the fact that a different crime was committed.  It is a difference in degree only.  Outside the context of a sex crime, the illogical nature of this statement becomes apparent.  For example, if a victim was beaten severely, it would make little sense to defend the acts of the perpetrator on the grounds that at least it was not murder.    

Similarly, Jim Bob goes on to state the touching lasted for just a few seconds suggesting that a short crime is less serious than a longer one.  Again, applied outside the context of sex crimes, the logical fallacy of this statement is readily apparent.  For example, if a person committed armed robbery, it is not persuasive to argue that the robbery wasn’t as serious because it “only lasted a few seconds.”  The reality is that a robbery victim is harmed by the intrusion and invasion, regardless of the amount of time the robbery actually lasts.  No one can legitimately claim that a short robbery is somehow less serious than a long robbery.  

Next, Jim Bob appears to suggest that remorse begets reformation by indicating his son cried about his actions.  Once again, while this may be a nice sound bite, it is simply unsupported by the evidence.  In most sentencing hearings I have participated in, the defendant apologizes, laments, cries and begs for forgiveness.  However, once released from incarceration, many defendants go on to commit similar or worse crimes.  The recidivism rate is well-documented within the justice system.  Tears and apologies simply do not equate to reformation.  

Finally, Jim Bob goes on to state that it took three separate occasions for the Duggars to decide they needed help.  This is incredulous.  If a child reported a teacher touched him or her inappropriately, no one would argue that perhaps the family should wait to see if happens a second time, much less a third time.  If a child was punched by another student, the argument would not be made that action should not be taken until the child is hurt two more times.  

In the same interview, Michelle claimed the girls were victimized more by the media blitz than what happened 12 years ago.  She pointed out that the inappropriate touching occurred while the girls were asleep.  Michelle clearly doesn’t understand the ramifications of non-consensual sexual contact.  Having sex with someone who is incapable of providing consent does not mitigate against the seriousness of the conduct.  Rather, it is actually worse because the perpetrator intentionally, willfully and knowingly took advantage of the person’s incapacitated state.  Michelle clearly doesn’t understand that her and her husband’s failure to protect their children from harm is a much worse betrayal than a media story.  

The Duggars’ current strategy, most likely in the hopes of getting their cash cow back on TLC, is to blame the media for re-victimizing their daughters.  Twelve years ago, Michelle and Jim Bob chose to place their children in harm’s way by not accepting the seriousness of Josh’s criminal abuse of their daughters.  Michelle and Jim Bob continued to place their children in harm’s way by forcing their children to grow up in the public eye in exchange for financial gain.  Today, Michelle and Jim Bob continue to place their children in harm’s way by minimizing Josh’s conduct. The only people who have re-victimized their daughters are Jim Bob and Michelle.  Perhaps they are the real predators here.