Safety Net Committee is far from secure
 
By Vicky Prunty and John Llewellyn
Opinion
The Spectrum
 
Of the 500 victims the Safety Net Committee has allegedly helped — how many incidents of abuse constituted a crime? And if crimes were committed, how many perpetrators were prosecuted?

Of the 500 victims helped, how many women and children actually left the polygamist environment where they were abused? And how many victims that were helped returned to the abusive environment, either of their own volition (religious reasons) or because they had no other alternative?

Five hundred victims are a lot, which conveys a strong indication that there are serious problems within the polygamist subculture. The Safety Net statistics do not identify these problems or whether measures were taken to correct these problems. One can’t help wonder, is the program analogous to giving a battered wife medical attention, and then sending her back to her husband? Unless the circumstances resulting in abuse are corrected, the Safety Net program can expect a perpetual supply of victims, which means the necessity of yearly renewing the Safe Passage Grant. Perhaps, a plus for many Utah salaried service providers.

We believe the taxpayers who are footing the bill for the Safety Net Committee are entitled to know the nature of the abuse. With no arrests being made the abuse is probably categorized as "domestic violence," which could involve several types of trauma — physical violence, neglect, non support, emotional and psychological coercion, (pernicious mind control) which are the common types of abuse endemic to the Mormon polygamist subculture (Not to mention child molestation.)

Mr. Shurtleff makes it clear that discussions pertaining to decriminalization are not permitted in the Safety Net meetings, which incidentally are copiously attended by practicing and pro- polygamy activists. But the last town meeting organized by Mr. Shurtleff was nothing more than a forum for decriminalization. If no effort is made to correct the causes of abuse it begs the question — is the Safety Net program inadvertently subsidizing the polygamist subculture?

Safety Net providers have been careful not to bring religion or polygamy into the equation for fear that it will discourage victims from coming forward. Nor do government service providers make leaving the polygamist subculture a condition before assistance is granted. This is all well and good. However, indifference to doctrine and teachings that are inseparable from the abuse — in other words, doctrine and teachings that are part and parcel of the alleged religious revelation commanding the practice of plural marriage — implies government recognition that Mormon plural marriage is a bona fide religious tenet protected under the First Amendment — which it is not.

A few politicians, prosecutors, journalists and scholars are quick to say, as in the case of Warren Jeffs, "This is not about religion or polygamy, but rather, it’s about crimes against children." For those women and children who are authentic victims of Mormon polygamy and dare to speak out, the statement is ludicrous. When a religious belief or practice instigates, encourages, instructs or condones a crime how can it not be culpable. The State may not be able to prosecute the polygamy revelation, or the religion that is responsible for the revelation, but to infer there is no connection between the revelation, religion and the crime is misleading. If there were no revelation their would be no abuse. To say religion or polygamy had nothing to with Warren Jeff’s crimes is like saying religion had nothing to do with young Muslims driving airplanes into the Twin Towers on 9/11.

In conclusion, Mr. Shurtleff said that "Prosecutors have and will continue to prosecute crimes within these communities like anywhere else." But what about Rachael Strong? If there was ever a victim of domestic violence who was willing to testify it was Rachael, who gave a sworn statement that she “submitted” under extreme duress. Mr. Shurleff interpreted that as "consent" and would not use the bigamy statute to put a sexual predator out of business because Rachael was age twenty. So when Mr. Shurtleff said, "prosecutors will continue to prosecute crimes within these communities," was his tongue pressed against his cheek?

The Attorney General, and other prosecutors, have said they will only go after crimes against children. Does that mean if a sixty year-old father marries his twenty year-old daughter and sires several children, they won’t prosecute, and the polygamist father gets a free pass? Does that mean incest, which is a serious problem with some Mormon polygamists, will be treated like bigamy, only worth prosecuting if the victim is underage? Does that mean Attorney Mark Shurtleff’s solution to simply emancipate children, as in the case of the “cast away” boys, absolving polygamist families of all responsibility is a viable solution when any other citizen would be prosecuted for criminal neglect of a child?

Crimes are not being prosecuted in these communities like anywhere else. Polygamy is a felony. If there is any "bending the law, changing rules and altering the justice system" as Mr. Shurtleff puts it, it is because polygamists are given a free pass and the bigamy law is not being enforced, such as in the case of Rachael Strong.

To sum it all up, there will always be polygamy abuse until parents learn to love their children more than their prophet, and learn to love their children more than they fear their Mormon god. Prevention and prosecution could be channeled through Safe Passage funds and a safety net, yet the conflict of interest may be too much for the state of Utah and its Attorney General.

Vicky Prunty is the executive director Tapestry Against Polygamy. John Llewellyn is the advisor and author of "Polygamy’s Rape of Rachael Strong."
 
TheSpectrum.com
Originally published November 7, 2006
 
Back