If Josh Duggar owned up and paid his debt to society and served his time, I'd let him vote. Conservatives wouldn't.
Did you demand the same for Barney Frank? For Bill Clinton? For Gerry Studds? For Ted Kennedy and/or his nephew who he defended? Etc. etc. etc. Once we get on the slippery slope of demanding that one person bear the most severe penalty of law but give those we like pretty much a pass, it all becomes quite murky and the lines of justice become very blurred.
I think each of us has to search our own heart for what is appropriate in any given case. It seems to me that Josh Duggar has suffered huge public embarrassment and significant consequence for his past sins. If his sisters can forgive him and assure us that all is well, what is it to the rest of us to allow him to get on with his life? What purpose is served by locking up a repentent adult because of something stupid he did in his youth that caused no lasting harm?
Not sure what crime was committed by Barny Frank, and Bill Clinton got away with stupidity only because his wife forgave him - again no crime was committed - but the point you're trying to make is valid - justice in America seems to have less to do with the truth than the resources that the accused can commit to lawyers and campaign contributions, and that truly is a disgusting black eye worn by all of us.
If Josh Duggar were truly repentant, he would confess his crimes publicly and accept whatever punishment society wanted to throw at him without so much as a word in his own defense. Sure, as a believer in Jesus, The Christ, as described in The Torah and The New Testament, he could rest in the forgiveness from God that his faith provides, but his debt to society is between us and him. Just because God forgives him doesn't mean that humanity at large is under the same obligation.
What debt to society does a person owe when those he offended see no reason to impose any penalty or judgment? In most or all states, all other crimes in which there is no lasting harm, the juvenile is 'forgiven' by society when he reaches the age of majority and his record is sealed and can't be held against him. Again what purpose is served by locking up a repentent adult because of something wrong he did in his youth that caused no lasting harm?
According to some its what "humanity is suppose to do". Probably why humanity is in such a huge mess now.
I really don't understand pedophiles....don't even know all the behavior pedophilia covers. Ive never dealt with in life...directly or indirectly. I was trying to find out if the accusations are legitimate.
If I thought Josh Duggar was a pedophile, then of course he should not be in a position with access to children at all. But not a single one of us has any clue about that do we.
I have worked for and with organizations with youth programs, including military and church schools, and we also have been involved with scouting programs our entire adult lives. It is absolutely a fact and an ongoing concern that people with pedophile propensities do gravitate toward those kinds of organizations where they have easy unsupervised access to kids. It was not epidemic, but far too often scout leaders were banned or a chaplain was found engaging in inappropriate behavior with the kids, or we were advised that this volunteer or that employee was just 'not right'.
Oddly it is the same people who most strongly condemn a Josh Duggar who object to what they say is overreach of organizations who do stringent screening to try to protect the kids.
IMO, a moral society does what it reasonably and sensibly can to protect the children. And all we can do is what we can personally control. It is the responsibility of those who know and deal with Josh Duggar to determine whether he is or is not a 'good' person. And I don't see that as anybody else's business.
