| OCR Text |
Show Guild Abuse in Arizona and Utah Polygamous Families: An Argument in Favor of Strict and Broad Enforcement of Punishment for Polygamy-related Crimes Against Children Carly Castle future punishment. The child was, in fact, warned that only by committing an illicit act could she comply with the requirements of her religion.... The Court continued by saying that Appellant's intent. ..is to inculcate in his own child a belief in what he knows to be illegality. His instruction may perhaps, as the child matures, even become insistence that she engage in such conduct. The difference between the two involvements is vast, since the first, while undesirable, does not, unlike the latter, constitute indoctrination in a practice which the Commonwealth has determined to be criminal (Sanderson v. Try on 2003, 6). The Pennsylvania High Court established that the indoctrination of polygamy is in fact a sufficient reason for children to be removed from the custody of a parent who intends to raise them in a polygamous environment. Utah Division of Child and Family Services Policy Carol Sisco, the Department of Human Services Public Information Officer, explained the current Department of Child and Family Service (DCFS) policy towards children in polygamy is that "As far as we're concerned, polygamy by itself is not a reason to remove a child from a home" (2004). This policy is consistent with the Sanderson v. Tryon Utah Supreme Court case. Like with any other case, the only reason that DCFS would investigate a case of abuse or neglect in a home would be because they had received a report from a neighbor or family member that there was abuse or neglect in the home. Sisco went on to say that because polygamous society is "very closed," it is unlikely that anyone would report abuse (2004). In a January 2004 article, the Arizona Republic quoted Sisco saying that "In cases where there are no allegations of forced marriage, chronic neglect or abuse, families are referred to counseling." She adds that "We can't really do much beyond that. We don't have the authority" (Bland 2004). In contrast, this essay argues that the very nature of the society gives DCFS and other state agencies authority to intervene on the children's behalf. The control of the church leaders over the members of the community inevitably facilitates the abuses of brainwashing and isolationism; which leads to sexual abuse, forced marriage, physical neglect, and emotional neglect. According to Black v. State of Utah (1955), the evidence of abuse, neglect, and practice of polygamy gives DCFS the authority to intervene in Colorado City and Hildale. The New York Times reported in a February 2000 article that Utah State Senator Ron Allen (D-Stansbury Park), when talking about some bills that he sponsored that dealt with polygamy, said that "It's come to my attention in the past couple of years that there are a number of human rights violations in our state in these closed societies.... There is a pre- ponderance of empirical evidence that these crimes are quite common and may even have the tacit approval of some community members" (Utah Senate Approves Bill to Fight Polygamist Crimes 2000). Why is it that "these crimes are quite common" in Colorado City and Hildale? Vince Beiser of Maclean's explained that these kinds of crimes may are common in polygamous communities because "In polygamous families, the patriarch has all the power. When there's that kind of imbalance, abuse comes naturally" (Beiser 1999). The Cultic Studies Review published a press release from the International Human Rights Clinic of the New York University School of Law Clinical Program that reiterates this point, saying "The religious teachings of these polygamous groups and the closed nature of their communities create conditions in which women and girls are especially vulnerable to violence, coercion, and abuse" ("Activists Call for End of Polygamy Abuses" 2002.). Martha Sonntag Bradley adds that The doctrine of individual free agency...occurs repeatedly in fundamentalist literature. However, the context and examples usually assumed that the reader, like the speaker, was male, and the issue of choice was most frequently invoked in the context of being free from the constraints of society to live a polygamous lifestyle. Women in Short Creek had few choices to make as adults. Here the culture of fundamentalism coincided with the limited opportunities offered in an isolated, rural, frontier community (1993, 98). This sort of absolute control over the affairs of the members of polygamous communities is described by a Mrs. Alfonzo Nyborg, the wife of the Short Creek deputy sheriff, who was also raised in a polygamous community. She said that "the children.. .don't have a mind of their own. They [the male leaders] just live their lives for them" (Bradley 1993, 98). She also reported upon once commenting to a girl, who is both a polygamist daughter and wife, that "they must hold something over you so that you do like that." The girl answered, "They do, but I can't explain it" (Bradley 1993, 98). This isolation that the children are controlled under was described by Sharil Jessop Blackmore. She described an awakening when she realized that she was never going to see the rest of the world. She also realized that she was "ill-equipped to fend for herself. She was not trained for a job, and knew no one outside of Short Creek; the thought of a world full of strangers terrified her. Therefore, leaving was simply not an option.... Short Creek itself reinforced the authoritarian nature of fundamentalism, allowing its young people little room for independence" (Bradley 1993, 98-99). The isolation of children in the FLDS Church described by Blackmore is aided by the fact that none of the FLDS children attend state-owned schools. A November 2000 Newsweek article reported that FLDS Prophet Warren Jeffs told the "Priesthood People" to separate themselves from the "apostates" around them (Murr 2000). That next September, 36 |
