Deseret News | Jurors: Girl's age was crucial to decision in Jeffs trial

Reader comments
Jurors: Girl's age was crucial to decision in Jeffs trial

Alan. | 12:40 a.m. Sept. 26, 2007

OJ gets away with murder, as does Blake and Spector. M Jackson is a child molestor and walks free. But at least its great to see that justice is finally being done and someone who aranged marriages is going to jail for life! I think that its important to get ones priorities right!

Interloper | 2:29 a.m. Sept. 26, 2007

Do you understand anything at all? Jeffs' sentences on these convictions could be as little as five years if the two run concurrently. The acquittals of Simpson and Blake, right or wrong, have nothing to do with this case. No verdict has been reached in the Spector case. Frankly, it doesn't surprise me that an apologist for Jeffs hasn't a clue what he is talking about.

Tiny | 3:57 a.m. Sept. 26, 2007

That's the best thing I have read from you Alan. Good job.
Way to go Elissa, you're a brave lady!!

Comments continue below

Diamond Ladi | 5:19 a.m. Sept. 26, 2007

If you consider all the lives that this man has messed up- the victims of his "arranged marraiges"- Yes, they got it right.
And- does the fact that justice may not have prevailed in those other cases mean that justice shouldn't prevail here?

A-ster | 5:44 a.m. Sept. 26, 2007

The problem is that he was not charged with arranging marriages. He was charged as an accomplice to rape. The state's evidence was weak, the jury is not convinced a rape ever even occurred, and they dismissed a juror b/c she didn't agree w/ the state's theory of what happened. Sorry folks, but this one gets overturned on appeal.

Dman | 5:51 a.m. Sept. 26, 2007

Alan, you're joking right? You think this trial was about arranging marriages? This trial was about a man facilitating the sexual exploitation of a 14-year old girl. The jury found that Jeffs was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The other criminals you mentioned were let off because their juries couldn't do the same. Justice has indeed been served.

Adam | 6:27 a.m. Sept. 26, 2007

Justice?

Opie | 7:48 a.m. Sept. 26, 2007

I despise both Jeffs and his relion, but this was not about justice, it was about sticking it to Warren Jeffs. If it was about justice, they would have charged the "husband", the woman's parents, and other church leaders.

Think of the precedent. What happens now if a minister, rabbi or Bishop councels a woman to stay with her husband to try to save a marraige and the husband ends up killing her? Can the clergy be help as accomplices to murder? It seems to me like that's what the jury (and the State of Utah) is saying here.

George | 8:02 a.m. Sept. 26, 2007

This was statutory rape. Consent or the lack thereof is irrelevant. Therefore, it has nothing to do with counseling any woman to stay with her husband, unless the woman is under the age of 16 and her husband is more than three years older than she.

T | 8:23 a.m. Sept. 26, 2007

I for one am glad the he is found guilty. How many 14 yr olds have had there lives ruined by this man in arranged marriages. I have a 14 yr old daughter and she is no where close to being ready to marry or put in that situation. It needs to stop.

Re: Opie | 8:25 a.m. Sept. 26, 2007

The difference with an adult woman, is that she can legally make her own choices. i.e. staying with an abuser is her own choice. With a 14 year old, she cannot decide to have sex with an adult. The Adult should know better and therefore is charged. In this case perhaps the 'husband' was not charged because he was somewhat forced by jeffs as well.

Scott | 8:27 a.m. Sept. 26, 2007

Opie is correct. I hate the idea of polygamy especially when it involves children. I hate the fact that Joseph Smith did it.
Jeffs was prosecuted for his beliefs and performing a spiritual marriage. The parents and husband are more culpable than Jeffs. They arranged it and supported it.
The case was based on protecting the youth.She wasn't the first or the last, but the case is more about this states majority population trying to distance itself from its past to have a greater place in the present and future.

What happened first? The concern that a spiritual marriage was performed and all parties involved with the rape are held accountable.
or

The negative national news attention for the smae matter

chris | 8:41 a.m. Sept. 26, 2007

Most 14 yr olds I know are not ready to be married, let alone have sex with a first cousin. Because of the Jeff's 'culture' he imposed, he forced this young lady into 1. a marriage she did not want
2. into a sexual relationship she
did not want
3. a marriage that would otherwise
be illegal - that to a 1st
cousin.
I'm glad she's now 21, able to think clearly and is happily married to someone not on the tunk of her famiy tree. She's a brave girl, and setting the way for other girls to come forward and right the wrongs that have been heaped upon then . Plural marriages are fine with me, so long as everyone consents. I have ancestors that were in Plural marriages. But from all I've studied about my family, all were in the marriages willingly.

cory | 8:52 a.m. Sept. 26, 2007

Alan just keeps jumping from article to article trying to make people angry. The last thing he has is a valid point. I agree that this is getting overturned in appeal.I dont agree with that, but thats what happens when you go after the accomplice without going after the rapist. And whether this is proven in a court of law or not, its still morally bankrupt, I think anyone can agree with that. Although I still think that they need to make a good case to put him in jail.. We cant just jail people on moral charges.

Knowledge | 8:56 a.m. Sept. 26, 2007

Opie,

Linking this case to the hypothetical you gave is irrelevant. The key difference between what Mr. Jeffs did and what the bishop/rabbi/minister does is foreknowledge.

When the religious authority in your hypothetical scenario counsels a wife to stay with her husband, and he kills her, he is not an accomplice to any crime because at the time he had no knowledge that a crime would be committed against her.

When Mr. Jeffs married this underage girl off to her cousin, and again when he counseled her to remain in the marriage, he did so fully aware that they would be having sex and that for her to do so was illegal. THAT is why he is an accomplice and the person in your hypothetical is not.

RT | 9:04 a.m. Sept. 26, 2007

This is a Strange one! Guilty of encouraging underage sex? Yes. Is that criminal? Probably. But, accomplice to a 'crime' where they didn't charge the readily-available perpetrator? No. Was there a crime? Yes, but NOT accomplice to rape, unless you charge the 'husband'. I know, interpret the law in a new way in order to get the practice stopped. Stopping Underage Polygamy is right. This method of doing it seems tenuous to me.

Karen | 9:42 a.m. Sept. 26, 2007

I think Elissa is a VERY brave woman. I doubt many women would want to publically disclose the very personal matters she needed to. And to have done so at the age of 21 is just amazing to me. How many women and girls are raped and molested each year and never speak up because of fear, humiliation, etc? She clearly wanted to make a difference, not only to herself (in finding satisfaction of justice served) but also to the hundreds of other young girls that have faced a similar underage "marriage" situation.

Elissa, you have made a difference and hopefully things will eventually change for the other young women in the FLDS. You and your family are in my prayers.

David | 9:48 a.m. Sept. 26, 2007

I commend the jury for their verdict. However, when is the man that raped the young lady going to be put on trial? How can someone be charged with assisting a rape when the rapist has not been charged? Isn't this a little backwards.

Denise | 9:49 a.m. Sept. 26, 2007

Yes, we are trying to stick it to Jeffs. However, he is not an innocent bystander or scapegoat. I will wait until sentancing to make a call on if "he gets what he deserves."

AZ | 9:57 a.m. Sept. 26, 2007

Grow Up People!!!!

Emma | 10:21 a.m. Sept. 26, 2007

For those that "hate" polygamy, it wasn't removed from the D & C so could on day be reapplied when the prophet feels the "time is right." We still have polygamy in the temple ( a divorced man may be sealed for time and all eternity to both his ex and a new wife.) The church hasn't changed its stance, it only got sneakier.

A-ster | 10:23 a.m. Sept. 26, 2007

Sure, Elissa is brave. However, she may also be motivated by money. Don't forget that this all started with a civil lawsuit. Also, keep in mind that the victory in the criminal case indirectly increases the chance for success in the civil case. Whether she was brave or greedy, I hope her actions will show other indiviuals there is a way out if they want it.

BC | 10:26 a.m. Sept. 26, 2007

Opie and Scott are dead wrong. I would highly recommend reading up on current events and Utah states stand on polygamy. The State of Utah has for the most part given up on prosecuting polygamist. Tom Green was convicted of rape of teen bride with the evidence of his oldest son. I believe Tom Greenï¿½s wife was 14 years old when his first child was born. The State of Utah is aggressively going after the negative side effects of polygamy. The three major problems are teen brides, the ï¿½lost boys,ï¿½ and welfare fraud.
Opie this does set a precedence for future cases. The next time a Bishop counsels a 14 year old girl to give her ï¿½mind, body, and soulï¿½ to a 19 year old man and do her ï¿½duty,ï¿½ that Bishop should also be prosecuted and go to prison.

wrz | 11:15 a.m. Sept. 26, 2007

George: "This was statutory rape."

If so, the rapist, the girl's husband should be on trial, not Jeffs. And since he's not, there is no rape. At least that's what the State seems to be saying. And if there's no rape, Jeffs should go free and get an apology from the State.

This will be overturned on appeal. At which time, Jeffs should counter sue the State and the girl for his troubles.

observer | 11:21 a.m. Sept. 26, 2007

My grandma years back was married at 14 to a 22 year old man, my grandpa. The JS comment is out of order as it was a different time and young girls were regularly married, to be taken care of by someone.

Cameron | 11:41 a.m. Sept. 26, 2007

Regarding the State's apparent decision to charge the accomplice and not the rapist: Have patience. A.G. Mark Shurtleff announced on public radio just this morning that charges will be forthcoming against at least some of those others (the husband, father, mother, etc.) mentioned above. As for the ridiculous idea also presented above that Jeffs was merely "counseling" a wife to stand by her man: She was a child. I don't care about your ecclesiastical position; you simply cannot stand by and do nothing when a CHILD begs you to help them prevent a rape. But Jeffs did much more than stand by. He lent his support and comfort to the rapist. I think some people just have difficulty admitting to themselves that a 14-year-old is a child, but the fact of the matter is that they certainly are. Here's an exercise: Imagine that she were five, rather than fourteen (both are children, after all), and YOU were the authority she begged to help her avoid her impending marriage and rape. Do you truly think you would have no responsibility if you then ignored her pleas, and instead led the rapist to her bedroom?

Vern | 11:50 a.m. Sept. 26, 2007

Where did Mr. Jeffs get his authority to "marry" or "disolve" a marriage? Sounds like they've created their own "alternate reality". . .

BC | 12:13 p.m. Sept. 26, 2007

WRZ and all those we refuse to read or listen to state officals. They are going after the husband and parents. Going after Jeffs and getting a conviction first is all part of their legal strategy. Give it time. By the way there is a long list of charges that will come forward with time. Arizona is in line to go after Jeffs too. So those who think Jeffs will be released from jail on appeal are dreaming. This case was not the only egg in the basket. Jeffs will never be a free man again.

Kia | 12:28 p.m. Sept. 26, 2007

I'd like to lay a foundation for what I'm going to say, before I get into my actual statements about this case. I don't believe in polygamy as it is practiced now. I believe God removed his endorsement of the practice when He instructed the LDS Church to end it (and yes, Utah gained statehood because of that). I believe the reason so much abuse (of all kinds) occurs in polygamy is because the Spirit of God is no longer involved the practice, and the practice has become corrupt. I believe, for that reason, it needs to be ended.

However, I don't believe the State made their case here. This was a matter of He-said/She-said, and the defense had some pretty powerful character praises for Warren, who --by the way-- wasn't even the leader of the FLDS church when the marriage was performed. I think the State wants to take a stand against polygamy and put Warren away, and they scraped together a case to accomplish that. I totally agree with the State's goals. I just wish they had picked a stronger case... preferably one that happened while Warren was actually the leader, and other witnesses knew of the abuse.

BC | 12:58 p.m. Sept. 26, 2007

KIA, this is not a He-said/ She-said case. It's a his-age/ her-age case. Jeffs was the First Counselor of the prophet and was directly involved in this girlï¿½s rape in the form of marriage from the arraignment of the couple, counseling to get married, performed actual marriage ceremony(even though she was crying with sad tears), and gave follow up counseling to repent and give your mind, body, and soul to your first cousin.

A Parent | 1:55 p.m. Sept. 26, 2007

Hey opie. They have now charged the husband, so there goes your point #1 and second Jeff's didn't tell them to go forth and murder, he said go forth a mulitply. He got what he deserves.

Kia | 2:30 p.m. Sept. 26, 2007

BC, I conceed your point. Statutory rape is rape, you're right, and Warren Jeffs was an accomplice to that by performing the union which enabled it. Now the actual rapist is being charged. In this case, we can only hope the parents will be next, and anyone else who facilitated the arrangement. And we can hope the State will accomplish the goal it set out to do, and this will be the beginning of the end for incestuous/ underage/ non-consensual polygamy.

Citizen | 2:34 p.m. Sept. 26, 2007

You are all too technical. We must all protect our children. They are our most important product we produce. A man 51 years old telling a 14 year old girl to get married and have sex is crazy. The jury did the right thing. They saw through all the lies.

Beliver | 2:40 p.m. Sept. 26, 2007

CHeck your history. For years, and years the State of Utah has ignored the polygamy issue. The State was not willing to deal putting fathers in jail and hundreds of children on welfare. Teen age marriages went on all the time. It was easier to ignore the problem and they did. Rulon Jeffs (the father) was never involved with the kinds of things his son is doing. When Rulon was head of the Church the Church and its practices were basically ignored. Jeffs should have left well enough alone and things would have continued to be ignored. Jeffs brought this on himself. Poor baby! Iwant to know when the certification of the police officers in Hilldale are going to revoked. They are not holding up the law. They support Jeffs not the law. Anyone???

thinker | 5:43 p.m. Sept. 26, 2007

How can you be an accomplice to a rape and never charge anyone of the rape or even agree that a rape has occurred. I wonder if Mr. Jeffs' real crime is being the head of the FLDS church. I think our legal system failed.

Anyone | 6:35 p.m. Sept. 27, 2007

The jury makes no reference to discussing what has been PROVEN to have been said by the 9 witnesses who presented actual PROOF (you know as in actual physical proof) of what Jeffs counciled them and other couples to DO.

They found Warren Jeffs guilty by one persons words and ignored his own words. He was found guilty by the jury whether there were reasonable doubts or not.

So what did the poor victim do who didn't have a clue about what sex was and didn't have a clue about what rape was?

She went out and bought a Neglege and flaunted it in front of her rapest (now convince me if you can that that is the behavior of a rape victim toward her rapist)

Then this girl who knew absolutely NOTHING about SEX or rape went and found anther man who was over 18, while she was still under 18, and slept with him (maybe he paid her better) but he has not been accused of rape. Why not?

Anyone | 6:42 p.m. Sept. 27, 2007

Oh, wait

because he's the hero who raped? her and didn't have an accomplace except Leesie herself.

A Million Dollars is a pretty good reason to tell a story about taking two whole bottles of pills to kill yourself then "eventually" throwing them up but never passing out, never telling ANYONE and never being found dead or passed out on the floor.

Reasonable doubts?

Someone | 7:28 p.m. Sept. 27, 2007

This country has gone crazy.

Reading or quoting a passage of scripture is now considered commanding someone to rape someone else?

Every other miniser in the state of Utah including the MORMONS should be sued for rape for reading passages of scripture at weddings, let's be unbiased here, shall we?

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.