OCR Text |
Show Hingkley Journal of Politics 2005 that local prosecutors "say they can't afford to pursue the com-Plex crimes associating with polygamy, from welfare fraud to child neglect." Davis County Attorney Mel Wilson said that if all of the sudden you say you're going to prosecute all polygamists, we'd have to hire about fifteen people in each of our offices" (Cart 2001). Torpor of Law Enforcement There is also a general torpor surrounding the prosecution of polygamy-related crimes. The Los Angeles Times reported that the Mohave County Attorney William J. Erickson said that there is no driving desire to prosecute people for these types °f things. We see it as consensual relations between adults" (Cart 2001). Mark Curran, the co-director of Help the Child Brides explains the attitude of law enforcement officials by saying that "There are very few benefits to going after [polyg-amists]. Most people here would just as soon forget about it" (Griggs 2003). The passive stance that the public has taken ls unfortunate, because polygamy, according to child abuse mvestigator Lt. Diana Hollis,"takes a firm hold and it's tough to get loose. It's real tough for law enforcement to get at. You've got to want to do it" (Cart 2001). Law enforcement's enthusiasm in implementing Polygamy laws is not aided by the fact that the police officers ln the two towns are often themselves members of the FLDS Church and serve the interests of its leaders. Ben Bistline claims, "The police are priesthood police...and cannot be relied upon to enforce the law fairly" (Llewellyn 2004, 126). Steps have been taken to remedy this problem, but the outcomes are often vague and inconclusive. Those who do attempt to enforce the law often pay a Price, as seen in the recent Tom Green case. Green had confessed to having sex with his then fourteen-year-old wife on an episode of Dateline NBC. Juab County Attorney David Leavitt saw the confession and proceeded to prosecute Green °n a first degree felony charge. Tom Green was convicted of bigamy and child rape and is currently serving a five-year-to-life sentence (Hardy 2003). Leavitt paid for his prosecution of Tom Green. In the 2002 Juab County District Attorney elections, Leavitt lost to Democrat Jared Eldridge by 22 votes. Leavitt told the Deseret News that he does not regret prosecuting Green, "even though it cost me my job" ("David Leavitt Has No Regrets" ^003, B02). Eldridge says that the Tom Green case had little to do with the outcome of the election, but Leavitt maintains that "my stand on polygamy revealed a divisive community" ("David Leavitt Has No Regrets" 2003, B02). Recent Anti-Polygamy Legislation Attempts During his time in the Utah State Senate, Senator Ron Allen has attempted to pass legislation that strengthens the state's ability to investigate and prosecute polygamy-related crimes. Senate Bill 99 of the 1999 General Session and Senate Bill 8 °f the 2000 session both appropriated money to the Attorney General's office for the investigation of polygamist activities. In addition, funds would also be given to the Department of Human Services for a hotline and shelter for families fleeing from isolated or polygamous societies. Senator Allen explains that lawmakers didn't believe that any crimes were being committed, and it was therefore unreasonable to appropriate the $2,000,000 to the AG's office and the Department of Health in Senate Bill 99 and $500,000 in Senate Bill 8. Senate Joint Resolution 12 of the 2001 session urged state law enforcement to promote "effective and consistent prosecution of criminal behavior." Senator Allen claims that while this bill did not appropriate any money, the Resolution was opposed because lawmakers did not believe that polygamy-related crimes were an issue (2004). When asked why that appropriated money to the Attorney General's office for the special prosecutor was passed, Allen says that legislators had started to realize that crimes were being committed against women and children (2004). Public Reaction to Parental Rights Laws A recent Deseret Morning News poll conducted by Dan Jones and Associates showed that 55 percent of people in Utah feel that the child welfare system had "adequate" authority to remove children from homes when it believes abuse or neglect has occurred. 28 percent believed that the system exercises too much authority. Only nine percent believed that the state does not have enough power, while seven percent didn't know. It is unlikely that legislation would be passed that could strengthen DCFS policy when more than half of the state believes child welfare agencies have enough power to protect children as it is, and with another third believing that the state exercises too much power (Bryson 2004a). The opinion of the public in regards to child welfare agencies was exacerbated by the major backlash of the Parker Jensen case during the summer and fall of 2003. The child welfare system was characterized as being a "bully picking on parents" (Bryson 2004a). Ultimately, DCFS gave up on their claim on Parker. That rallied together lawmakers and other groups that have long complained about the power of agencies like DCFS, and they seized on the opportunity to make political hay. The 2004 Legislative Session alone saw an introduction of 50-plus parental rights bills. While many of the more extreme "Parker Jensen" bills did not get through the Legislature, changes were made in regards to juvenile court proceedings in dependency, abuse, and neglect. Now DCFS must actively seek grants to pay for more in-home services to keep families together; the Guardian Ad Litem's office will be audited; and lawmakers will be exploring the option of requiring a full hearing by a judge with the parents before children can be taken into state custody (Bryson 2004b). The reaction of the public towards the policies of DCFS has seriously limited the possibility that any reforms that crack down on polygamy-related abuses will be introduced in the near future. |