Uneven Justice: The Warren Jeffs Case [Updated]

Until he was caught, Warren Steed Jeffs was on the FBI's "10 Most Wanted" list, alongside other notorious criminals such as Osama Bin Laden. Yesterday he was found guilty in a court in Utah, and when he is sentenced, he faces the possibility of life in prison. Jeffs has been portrayed by the media as a polygamous cult leader, which is more or less true. But there is a lot of misunderstanding here. The crime he was charged with had nothing to do with polygamy. So what did he do? To help explain, I'll have a conversation with my imaginary friend:

So this guy was on the ten most wanted. So what was he? A terrorist, serial killer, or what?
Actually, it's in connection with rape.

Ahh... so he's a serial rapist then?
Well, no.

But he is a rapist at least?
No, he didn't even rape anyone. He was charged with being an accomplice to the crime of rape.

So, like, he held a girl down while someone else raped her?
No, it was nothing like that. This was statutory rape, since the girl was only 14 years old. There was no physical force involved, and Jeffs wasn't even there at the time of the crime (when the couple had sex). He performed a marriage ceremony between her and a 19 year old man, and later encouraged them to have marital relations. Incidentally, if the groom was just two years younger, then it wouldn't have even been statutory rape.

OK, so the guy that married her committed the actual rape, right? So if they are going to this much trouble over Jeffs, they must have really thrown the book at that guy.
Nope. In fact, they didn't charge the man, Allen Steed, with anything. And it's unlikely that he cut some kind of deal, since his testimony strongly supported Mr. Jeffs, not the prosecution. In fact, this is one of the biggest non-sequitors of this case, and as a US citizen, I believe the FBI, the State of Utah, and the Prosecutor owe us an explanation.

Now I'll make one thing clear: I am not trying to defend Jeffs or his lifestyle. He portrayed himself as a prophet, essentially conned people into turning over their property to him, took dozens of wives, and isolated his religious community from the outside world. I simply would not want to live in his community, and it reminds me an awful lot of some of the worst aspects of Middle Eastern societies. But most of these crimes were essentially abetted by the people who were stupid enough to follow him, and he wasn't even charged with any of the above. The fact is, in this particular case, politics simply trumped the pursuit of justice.

After all, why the hell was this guy on the FBI's "Most Wanted" list? Can the FBI honestly swear that there was not one single murderer, kidnapper, or actual rapist at large to put on that list in place of Mr. Jeffs? Why was the DOJ wasting their resources publicizing a man, who was no threat to the public at large, over actual killers?

Here's a partial explanation from Chip Burrus, the acting assistant director of criminal investigations at the FBI, during an interview last year with Greta Van Susteren:

VAN SUSTEREN: All right. So when you picked up the last, 10th person [from the Most Wanted List], did the word go out to all the areas, "We picked up number 10, so we now have a vacancy?"

BURRUS: Yes.

VAN SUSTEREN: And how did Mr. Jeffs get on?

BURRUS: Well, here's what happens. We canvass the field offices for nominations. And there are two factors that go into the selection for the top 10 list: No. 1, you have to be accused of a particularly heinous crime. And No. 2, there has to be some indication that perhaps publicity will help find you and bring you to justice.

In Mr. Jeffs's case, he had the particular heinous crime, he's charged with child molestation, conspiracy, and he's got two federal warrants on him called "UFAP," Unlawful Flight to Avoid Prosecution. And in this case, too, because he's been wanted for about a year and he travels between various compounds, we think, we thought the publicity would really do us some good to bring him on the list and make people aware that he is wanted and, hopefully, bring him to justice safely.

VAN SUSTEREN: Is there ever a big debate, almost like a little argument, about who should go on, like, someone might have his or her candidate for it?

BURRUS: Oh, they all have their candidates, all the 56 field offices. And it's interesting to hear them make their various arguments for it. But in the end, I make a recommendation to the deputy director, and he decides the final person.
...
VAN SUSTEREN: In terms of Mr. Jeffs, so the publicity is the thing that puts him on, pretty much, I mean, because there are lots of child molesters out there with, you know, lots of warrants sitting on them.

BURRUS: But this one's a particular case, Greta. In this case, you have a guy who not only is a child molester, an accused child molester himself, but he facilitates it. He's been in charge of a fundamental group for many years, and he facilitates it. It's not just the fact he's a child molester, but he also facilitates it. He's been charged as an accomplice. He's been charged with conspiracy. And we think that makes him pretty dangerous.

VAN SUSTEREN: In terms of the crimes he's charged with, the federal crimes, are they the unlawful flight and not the sex crimes? They are not federal crimes, are they?

BURRUS: No.

VAN SUSTEREN: So it's just the unlawful flight that makes it a federal crime.

BURRUS: Yes.

VAN SUSTEREN: So in order for that to be sort of powerful, you have to talk to the state people to see how — underlying, how serious their charges are, right?

BURRUS: That's right.

What's interesting here is that Mr. Burrus keeps harping the "child molester" angle, but Mr. Jeffs was never charged with child molestation except as an accomplice. So that accusation must have been pretty weak, and probably should never have been made in the first place. And Burrus admits that the only reason this got the FBI's attention was the "flight to avoid prosecution" charge. But the problem is, this crime is hardly unique to Warren Jeffs; in other words, Jeffs was just trying to avoid being caught (like every other criminal in the entire world...). And that crime can't be even prosecuted if the other charges don't stick.

I really wish Ms. Susteren would have asked him why Allen Steed wasn't also charged with a crime...

The interview confirms several of my suspicions. It's obvious that what is really going on here is Utah authorities are embarrassed by the existence of polygamous Mormons like Warren Jeffs, and they deliberately played up the case to draw the FBI into it in order to send a message to others. Look, I want Utah to pursue criminals. If he's a child molester, prosecute him with that, but don't publicly announce that he has molested children when he hasn't. If he's an accomplice to rape, then charge him and the actual rapist too. Is that too much to ask? And don't put him on the FBI's 10 most wanted and label him "armed and dangerous" without any evidence.

And here's a question for the blogosphere at large:
When is Andrew Sullivan, Glenn Greenwald, the NYT, and the rest of the gay marriage advocates going to come out and also support marriage rights for all adults, including polygamists?

Just thought I'd ask. What's good for the goose and all...


UPDATE 26/09/2007 09:15:00 PM:
Wow, that was a quick change of heart. Prosecutors just announced this hour that the former husband of the statutory rape victim will be charged with rape after all. It's about time; but I guess better late than never. Wouldn't most people think that going after an actual rapist would have already taken priority over going after the accomplice?
And why now? Did public pressure force their hand? Was this retaliation after Allen Steed testified in favor of Mr. Jeffs? Or maybe they just read my weblog...? (highly doubtful, but I can dream).





Interested in reading more? Click on any label below to read related articles, bookmark this site, or subscribe to my  RSS Feed