Texas polygamist gets 10 years for sex assault of teen 'wife'

The jury deliberated for six hours Tuesday before sentencing FLDS member Raymond Merril Jessop to 10 years in prison for sexually assaulting a 16-year-old girl five years ago.

He feels his trial was religious persecution.

| Sara Shepherd

Raymond Merril Jessop, left, is led outside during a break in the sentencing portion of his trial. Jessop, 38, was convicted Friday for having sex with the teen with whom he had a so-called spiritual marriage. (AP photo)

Comments

[Man in a Mission]

I have no problem with polygamy (whether it is one man-multiple women, one woman-multiple men, or multiple men-multiple women) in principle, as a religious or civil policy. However, I do have a problem with forcing a 16 year-old girl to marry a 33 year old man.

[Tom K]

They had to justify the raid somehow.

[kbp]

MnM,

Where do you read she was forced to marry Raymond, her 2nd husband?

[Man in a Mission]

kbp -

In the FLDS, marriages are decided and directed by that cult's leader - Warren Jeffs. After a year of being 'married' to one man, that 'marriage' was 'dissolved' and she was 'married' to the brother of her former 'husband'. This man then deprived this girl of medical care during labor because he was afraid of being found out.

Under Texas law, the only way someone who is 15 can be married is with both parental consent and a court order. That this splinter religious group enforces such actions on its members citing religious grounds does not exempt it from marriage laws, anymore than such laws are not exempted for Muslims or other groups.

This group has the same avenues open to gays and other groups that want changes to marriage laws - the courts, legislatures, and popular intiatives and referenda. Instead they act as they wish without regard to the law, including laws forbidding sexual abuse and exploitation of children by adults - including their own. It is illegal for a parent to permit the illegal sexual abuse of their 15 year-old or 16 year-old daughter by a 33 year-old man. Just like the story from yesterday of the father who 'married' his 14 year-old daughter off to a 23 year-old man.

This is not about religion, it is about a sect that is not attracting new members and expels adolescent boys, making them homeless while they are underage, in order to preserve a 'supply' of 'wives' for older, more connected, and established men. This is not a group advocating consenting adults deciding the type of relationships they want to have. This is a group that has conspired to rape children and to groom new victims out of their own children, their nieces, and their neighbors' children.

To me it is telling that the defense presented no evidence that the victim in this case was in this relationship willingly - rather they simply talked about what a 'great guy' he was.

I am going to join the jury in saying I am not persuaded of his nice nature. Instead, I, like the jury in this case, say Jessop is a child molesting pervert who would rather risk the death of his victim and the baby resulting from his rape of a child rather than risk arrest for raping that child. Personally, I think he got off lightly to only face a minimum of 5 years in a Texas prison for his crimes.

[Man in a Mission]

kbp -

Point 1 - The previous relationship with the brother is probative because it demonstrates the serial victimization of this girl by the Jessops. The brother was not charged in Texas because the acts he committed occurred in a different state/jurisdiction. It also establishes the nature of relationship between the victim and the accused.

Of course the evidences used don't fall into the automatic exclusion from hearsay rules. This is why the prosecution had to introduce primary corroboration of the items to establish veracity and credibility - hence the woman's testimony as to provenance.

Point 2 - The timing of the marriage law is irrelevant because Jessop was legally married to another person prior to his 'marriage' to the victim, which was illegal under the existing law, which is why no attempt was made to obtain a marriage license in Texas (or any other jurisdiction) for this relationship. Since this was not a legal marriage any sex falls under age of consent laws and the victim was too young under Texas' laws to grant consent (and no other could legally grant consent on her behalf) to sex with Jessop.

Point 3 - Challenges to the law do not include raping children. This group has not filed lawsuits challenging the validity of the laws, nor has it sought challenges to the marriage laws through the ballot box. If fact they have done nothing but violate the law. If this were a religious freedom issue, many avenues existed for this group to establish such a challenge to the validity of the law - none of which they have undertaken. The fact that you saw fit to add a "sic" to my definition of one of those avenues - initiatives - demonstrates your unfamiliarity with the political and legal process of challenging laws through collecting signatures to place a proposed law or change to existing law on the ballot.

Point 4 - I don't ignore the religious issues, rather I dismiss them. This group, as noted above, defends their actions in the media as being exempt based on religious freedom grounds, but make no avail to establish religious exemption from the laws. So, just as they don't make this a religious issue in this criminal case, neither do I.

Fischer is not the only source for the expulsion of boys to permit the availability of 'wives' for those who through their age, familial connections, and/or community position are 'granted' marriage/assignment of the women. This has been investigated and substantiated by independent media investigations and interviews with victims of this process, as well as with officials in surrounding communities where the expelled boys end up.

Point 5 - Again, if it were consenting adults who wanted to pursue a plural marriage or analog, I would have no problem. However, it is the coerced and abusive predation on children that is offensive.

Point 6 - The state of Texas did prove their case, which is why they prevailed. If the defense did not present evidence that contradicted the state's evidence or challenge the evidence presented by the state that supports that finding of guilt, then the defense is either acting in malfeasance of the accused or has no evidence that impeaches the veracity of the facts as defined by the state.

Point 7 - The jury, by finding Jessop guilty of sexual assault of a minor said he was a child molesting pervert. Because only a pervert molests or sexually assaults a child.

Point 7b - Your red herring about the changing societal standards and definitions is irrelevant and false. Adolescence in a social construct that has grown out of the ability of our society to provide a time in between biological childhood and mental, physical, and emotional maturity. If you don't understand that there is a difference between sexual maturity (the point at which it is possible for a male to impregnate a female, or for a female to be impregnated by a male and physical adulthood, then you really need to go back and re-study biology). The fact that the laws, mores, and standards of antiquity are at variance with current laws, mores, and standards does not invalidate the modern norms.

If you or others don't like the law and societal norms then work to change it and them. Otherwise be aware of the law and understand that judgement will be rendered on the basis of those norms and not on your ideals and/or fantasies.

Point 8 - The defense had ample opportunity to challenge the evidence and will have on appeal, including whether any evidence should be excluded. But the fact that some legal nicety may not have been followed will only affect a legal judgement, I reserve and cast my own opinion which is as previously stated, as is my right.

Point 9 - You can attempt to characterize the views of the jury - absent their statements that they only handed down a sentence of 10 years, a minimum of 50% to be served in actual incarceration in state prison as condemnation or opprobation of the tactics and/or evidence in this case. However, such interpretation is subject to the same criticism that you make regarding my statement about 'child molesting pervert'. If you are going to criticize someone for something, it really weakens your argument to turn right around and do the same thing of which you complain.

Conclusion - You demonstrate a glaring lack of understanding about the facts, issues, and arguments made in this case and in my rebuttal of you. I find your arguments to be irrelevant as well as both factually and logically unsound. Feel free to respond, but if I decide you haven't made any more valid points, I probably won't respond, or if I do, it will probably be with scathing ridicule and scorn that will be nowhere near as polite has I have been so far.

Have a nice day.

[Man in a Mission]

kbp -

One slightly snarky and humorous side note: you say you have 'volumes of evidence' but won't post it here - why be shy about posting volumes. You weren't with your last comment.

Have a nice day.