http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2011/04/susan_brock_sentenced_to_13_ye.php

I was in the same stake as this family for a awhile. Ick.

who is susan brock. ?????

deb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> who is susan brock. ?????

Mormon child molester woman

The details of the relationship between Brock and the boy include several portable sex toys, sex in a car, sex in a bathroom, sex at her mother's house, sex in the house she shared with her county supervisor husband, and most shocking, the boy also allegedly had sex with the Brocks' then-18-year-old daughter, Rachel.

My husband's family was in the same ward back in the '90s.

A pedophile is a pedophile.

They are right, this woman was deranged.

So the 18 year old wanted to do a 13 year old too?

I guess it runs in the family?

Or, what *does* this kid have? He sounds really dangerous around females. Will he be cured by adulthood? I hope he stays in Arizona.

Whatever.

So how damaged - really - was Mr. 13 year old from his horrible experience? Was his psyche harmed by all the bragging he got to do?

You may detect a note of cynicism here. Is the state really going to get its money's worth by imprisoning this woman?

I have not heard if they kicked her out for "honor code violation". Guess she is not a star athlete so they keep this hush hush, huh?

Mårv Fråndsen wrote
>
>
> You may detect a note of cynicism here. Is the
> state really going to get its money's worth by
> imprisoning this woman?

Are you suggesting that a woman who molests a boy child should receive different punishment than a man who molests a girl?

Mårv Fråndsen Wrote:


> So how damaged - really - was Mr. 13 year old from
> his horrible experience? Was his psyche harmed by
> all the bragging he got to do?
>
> You may detect a note of cynicism here. Is the
> state really going to get its money's worth by
> imprisoning this woman?

The law doesn't rule on the basis of what damage the offender did or did not do or whether or not the minor enjoyed it. The punishment is for the unlawful behavior and the rest I'd leave to the psychologists. Sometimes teens *do* encourage adults to have sex with them but it is an adult's job to set limits.An adult who has sex with a minor is putting his or her fate into the hands of that minor and is very foolish for doing so, aside from moral implications.

The woman is a pedophile child predator and belongs in jail. In matters not how much or how little harm the victim suffered. I don't care if the boy was shouting it from the rooftops -she was the adult and had a moral and legal obligation not to prey on a minor.

Your post disturbs me deeply Marv. I'm not joking at all when I say I think the woman is deranged.

Mårv Fråndsen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> So how damaged - really - was Mr. 13 year old from
> his horrible experience? Was his psyche harmed by
> all the bragging he got to do?
>

He very likely will be overly sexualized. He likely won't feel loved and cared for by the opposite sex, unless he's having sex with someone

Unless he is helped to have a major revision of how the world looks to him, he will probably struggle with affairs in his adult life as he tries to fill something that can't be filled.

When he is in new relationships, there will always be a very uncomfortable moment when inevitably a conversation of "who was your first one" comes up. He'll have to think up a really good lie each time, or have the relationship suddenly sound like a record being scratched by the needle getting bumped, and it all comes to an awkward halt.

He will likely have a hard time trusting women. He will likely become hyper vigilant over who his children are with.

And about 1,000 other things. The fantasy of having a hot 18-year-old, and then her mother seduce you is better in the fantasy, than it is in real life.

You are naive for thinking otherwise INOP.

The husband had knowledge one year before Susan Brock was arrested. At the time of her arrest he denied ever knowing about the fun and games between her and the 13 year old boy. Please read the account of the meeting between the Church, the parents of the boy as well as of the Brocks one year prior to the arrest. At that time, he showed no "righteous indignation" and even took possession of the Ipod containing all of the sleezy material exchanged between the 2. The man looks and is in fact a con man and a sleezebag! Typical mormon penisholder!

For goodness sake. The man is cheated on, and can't be sure (I did read the account, and she said nothing was going on at that time) anything is going on and you count him as a sleaze. Why can't he be considered cockhold, a victim of his wife's bad behavior? If a man cheats on his wife, people usually have some sympathy for the wife and do not attack her. Why is it not so for this poor fool?

The revenge would be for constantly being denied power and denied their sexuality by Mormonism and their husbands. Not making an excuse for them, just wondering about motives. When I worked with sex offenders, I worked with a religious women in her thirties who had sex with a 13-year old boy. Much of her motivation was power and being sexually/socially immature.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/07/2011 11:15PM by robertb.

This is similar to the other case in Idaho in one very important respect: at least 1 year prior, church leaders and many of the participants were aware of what had happened. No one contacted authorities.

Confidentiality and the religious leadership exemption used to explain away the fact that a pedophile was not reported to the police and no legal action was taken?

I think it's time the laws were changed, so that no protection of this kind exists, or is changed so that fewer exceptions are allowed.

And doesn't the current law allow for the leader to go to police, breaking the confessional confidentiality, if the leader believes the abuse will continue, or more people be hurt? So why aren't they being prosecuted under that law now?

Once this confession is shared by more than the person confessing and the leader who hears it, it's no longer private or confidential, right? If shared or discussed with others, as is the case in these meetings where family members are often involved, or discussed among others w/in the church who are not on church council or in on the meeting, isn't that breaking the confidence?

If the right to privilege or confidentiality is broken, when others beside the confessor and confessee have been informed of the so-called confession or accusation, then leaders should be mandated by law to report to authorities outside the church, or they should be prosecuted for not doing so.

Teachers, doctors, lawyers, EMTs, licensed day care providers, public employees have to; why not church leaders installed in places of public trust, on whom people rely and count on for life and death help of this kind?

This so-called counsel of church leaders, whose vested interest is in protecting and helping the church not the victim, needs to stop. Not just in the Mormon church, in ALL churches.

Separation of church and state should mean no undue harassment or banishment of sects based soley on their belief systems--but it should not mean it is okay for religious groups to break or flaunt the law and get special protection from penalties which the rest of us subject to those same laws, do not have.

Is there ecclesiastical confidentiality with respect to the LDS church? I thought they had a duty to report confessed criminal acts, particularly child abuse.

Also it is important to note that privilege (spousal, dr-patient, lawyer-client) is totally different from confidentiality. Privileged communications are afforded more protection .

The LDS church lobbied to change the law in Idaho, to add the words 'lay leader', ie: untrained Mormon church members functioning as clergy, to the existing law which allowed the clergy exception. That change they wanted, is now law in Idaho.

The change occured after scandals rocking the LDS church and the Catholic church occured in the early to mid 1990s. How convenient!

In the confessional in the Catholic church, it is similar. If the confessor admits wrongdoing and the confessee (priest or church leader) believes someone's life is in immediate danger, the priest has a legal duty to warn or act.

Otherwise, usually, no. They cannot and will not tell, and the law allows that exemption from what most of us would see as a moral duty to tell.

They are allowed to circumvent the law with the clergy exception, claiming that if every time someone confessed a sin to them, the priest ran and told a policeman about it, no one would ever confess.

Then, their members would never come to church, receive absolution for their sins/do penance, and then would not go to their graves in a state of grace.

They argue that policemen and women (and lawyers) are not spiritual advisors and have no business getting in the way of their congregants' personal relationship with their chosen God.

In other words, the rights of the church or the religious sect in question, usually take precedence over the right of the victim and the rules of law which govern the victim and the rest of us.

Protection is afforded to the perpetrator in a way it is not allowed for his/her victims. Exemption from a duty to report abuse is given to an LDS Elder, or Catholic priest, in a way it is not extended to a dentist or daycare provider, or teacher.

The priest or church leader can ask the confessor to turn himself in, or ask that the perpetrator apologize to the victim/make amends, and demand that they never commit this sin again.

The priest can counsel them to get help by confessing to a family member, or ask them to tell a professional (doctor, counselor, teacher, etc) outside the church.

But, in most circumstances, a priest or other church leader--- with the law the way it is now----does not have the legal right to go to the police or other legal authority and turn the perpetrator in. Not unless the perpetrator says it is ok for them to go tell.

And usually, unless certain circumstances apply, they are not allowed to break the seal of the confessional to even go ask the victim if they are ok, or offer the victim medical or mental health help.

Generally, their oath to protect is entirely with the original confessor. They are bound to keep his/her secret (unless certain conditions apply).

Priests usually will not even tell other priests about such a confession, or ask for help from them about it, for fear that the second priest may feel that the confessional seal has been broken and therefore there is now a duty to act.

But the LDS church is different. The LDS church seems to be practicing a form of arbitration or peer mediation, not confession. They call it confidential but it is not. Too many people are discussing it, investigating it, etc.

And if they are doing these other things, rather than confession, where both parties are questioned, and sometimes witnesses to events that occured are asked questions, too, then the confessional seal is already broken, isn't it?

So, why is it not treated that way? And why is the crime then not legally required to be reported?

If I tell my lawyer I killed someone, he doesn't have to report that to police or tell it in court; in fact, without my express permission to do so, he is prohibited from telling.

But, if I tell some stranger on a bus that I killed someone, or my lawyer and I discuss it in a diner where the waitress overhears us, either the stranger or the waitress can tell whoever they want, including a policeman, without penalty.

Once an LDS bishop, or whoever the perpetrator originally confessed to, tells another church member about the crime--no matter the other church member's rank--why doesn't the law make it mandatory that this second church member act?

Because LDS church members claim that all men in the church are leaders--and therefore all are clergy, and therefore all are required to protect the confessor. And LDS church leaders asked for the law to be changed, so that the wording now says "lay leader" not "clergy", to cover themselves and their untrained lay leadership, to be sure they can't get in trouble for these things.

Obviously, I am not a lawyer. But I am a former Catholic.

We need to work to change this stupid law. The exemptions need to go away.

Let them not tell when it's a minor sin, but make it mandatory to report all violent or predatory crimes.

The thing is, there is no penitent-clergy privilege in the LDS faith. The CHI clearly orders that any suspicions of child abuse be immediately reported to the appropriate authorities.

I feel that the church leaders are just cherry-picking when to apply the AZ law in order to cover their asses and not be implicated for failing to report the crime to authorities when it came to light.

Isn't the purpose of the penitent-clergy privilege supposed to protect confessions? I agree that that is not what the LDS church does as everything that is discussed in the Bishop's office is fair game to other PH leaders, committees, etc. It is not confidential within the church so how does it rise to the level of privileged information? I think that's a huge distinction from say what the Catholic church does where confession is between the Priest and penitent and it stops there.

I personally don't think the privilege should extend to the LDS church leaders for those reasons.

she deserved punishment. But is 13 years too much? I'm not sure.

The boy was 14 when it started. It became a control mechanism. When he was older and had a girl friend Brock drove them to the mall and left then in a van to have sex. The girlfriend's parents didn't approve of the boy so the Brock allowed them to meet at her house.

The boy stated that he had to do what Brock wanted because Brock was calling all the shots in respect to the boy seeing the girlfriend.

An ex-bf had this happen to him when he was 16. He had a lawn and landscaping business and when he started avoiding her, the woman called his mother (she was a neighbor) and told the mom that he had been paid to do the yard work and had not, so his mother made him go over to the woman's house. It is all about control. The exbf had some issues with sex because of it.

It does not matter if the offender is male or female or the victim is male or female, it is still abuse of a minor.

My philosophy of law depends on real harm being done, and then punishing commensurate with that harm, and preferably in a constructive way if possible.

I recognize the law is absolute. However an absolute law is often an ass and a cause of injustice rather than a solution to a social problem or an appropriate response to the act of an individual.

It *may* be this 14 year old (*not* a case of pedophilia) was harmed. Maybe. But I would want to see some real evidence to this effect, not a fictional assumption.

If there is a weight of evidence to this effect I would then agree the adult woman is responsible as the adult and some punishment would be appropriate.

I am (1) somewhat skeptical harm was done given the acts of the teenager, and (2) doubt the harm done is commensurate with a draconian 13 year prison sentence. I also doubt the interests of society are recovered compared to the cost of incarceration.

I agree with robertb and other comments that the woman probably has psycho-sexual issues. I'm not saying her behavior is issue free. But there are many things I do not agree with in society, some of which cause harm, but that does not make them seriously criminal in nature. Basically S**t Happens but you can't haul everyone off to jail for it, nor should you try.

One suggestion is that sans truly serious and uncompensatable harm I would treat the case as a tort rather than a crime. I.e. determine the harm level and demand compensation. I see that as serving the interests of the teenager, society and the woman better than a prison sentence.

It may be this young man may sail through and suffer no harm at all except the guilt of knowing he destroyed a rather troubled woman's life by sending her to prison for acts he enjoyed and which really did not amount to much to him.

The way I look at this is like drunk driving: Someone may drive drunk and never have an accident and never hurt anyone. However, the potential to hurt someone is great and does occur frequently enough that we do arrest people for drunk driving whether they hurt someone or not.

About 50% of boys, according to one study I read, report they were harmed by sex with an adult. The percentage of girls reporting harm was significantly higher. What's more is the minors may not feel they were harmed at the time but report later they were harmed. I have talked with men who had sex with an adult as teens. Some reported it harmed them in regard to later relationships and feelings of esteem, as DNA posted; others said it was a great experience. The younger teens tend to experience sex with an adult as harmful more often than older teens because the younger teens experienced the relationship as more coercive.The takeaway here is while teens are not invariably harmed by sex with an adult, harm occurs often enough that we are right to prohibit it.

In my work mandatory reporting of sex between an adult and a minor is not black-and-white. Sex between an adult and young teen is an automatic mandated report. However, sex between an older teen and an adult is given some leeway, although it is still technically illegal. The assumption underlying the difference is that that younger teens are not capable of consent and older teens are more capable. I don't think you would find a DA, judge or therapist that would say a 13-year old is capable of giving consent for sex with an adult.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/09/2011 02:20AM by robertb.

+1

Mårv Fråndsen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> It *may* be this 14 year old (*not* a case of
> pedophilia) was harmed. Maybe. But I would want to
> see some real evidence to this effect, not a
> fictional assumption.
>

Would you want the same for a woman that was raped? Should she have to prove that she was harmed?



> It may be this young man may sail through and
> suffer no harm at all except the guilt of knowing
> he destroyed a rather troubled woman's life by
> sending her to prison for acts he enjoyed and
> which really did not amount to much to him.


This is offensive on so many levels. I'm shocked and amazed that a person would even think that a child should have to feel guilty for the perpetrator of crimes against him getting punished.

Respect that I had for you is quickly vanishing.

It is not up to us each individually to decide if harm or the potential to harm is sufficient enough that we should act; individuals acting only in their own best interest without regard to the welfare of others---isn't that what our entire legal system is designed to prevent?

It's a system of laws, for a community of people.

A crime has occured; let the punishment suit the crime. Proportional response is best. I agree that SUsan Brock is a pedophile and her husband an enabler, her friend an accessory, and her daughter both an abuser and a victim. Don't forget her daughter was in on it, too. But 13 years? There have been pedos with 5+ victims who were far younger than this teen, that haven't been sent to jail that long.

The law should be clear, and the penalties for breaking the law, as well as for not reporting when the law has been broken, should be clear, too.

And while you need some latitude/leeway to suit circumstances, there is no doubt that the problem was considered serious enough that the LDS church was informed, the parents of the victim made an official complaint, the husband got involved and began closely observing his wife/took away her phone and car keys, etc.

They all clearly believed wrong had been done, and took steps (though not necessarily the right ones) to attempt to rectify that wrong.

Seems all the participants here did perceive harm, or the potential to harm, which should have spurred someone among them toward officially reporting it, a year ago, after that first meeting at the LDS church where all the acts became known.

The truth is... some women like to be raped, some kids like to be molested, some people like to be robbed, some people like having their kids get horrific diseases... But so what!

Some will surly be saying, that is absurd DNA, and can't be true. But there are women with rape fantasies, and at least one case in the news were the woman didn't want her attacker prosecuted becasue she didn't mind getting attacked by a stranger rapist. Don't shoot the messenger, but it has happened.

Some kids have found being molested enjoyable, as Robertb pointed out.

Some people love the attention and adrenaline of being robbed at gun point, and all the police action surrounding them, and being the star witness in a trial. For a glory hound, it's the greatest, as long as they don't get hurt.

There are parents who love having a severely sick child. They too like the attention and the pats on the back for bearing their burden so well. In extreeme cases, it leads to Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome.

So if some on this thread got there apparent wish, all these things wouldn't get so much severe sanctions or reactions, because after all, some people like it.

100% of people don't have to find something off-putting in order to protect society from it.

Even though in rare cases some women like to be raped, it still should be against the law. And even if some male children like to be sexually used by adults, it should still be against the law.

The idea that because some people like things that others find horrific, and so it shouldn't be seen as so bad, is crazy. And the idea that because some people like those things, then everyone who is victimized by it should have to prove that they were bothered, is also crazy.

DNA Wrote:
>
> Some kids have found being molested enjoyable, as
> Robertb pointed out.
>

Oh, thanks, DNA. You could have put this a different way. Now I hope people go back and read what I wrote.

robertb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> DNA Wrote:
> >
> > Some kids have found being molested enjoyable,
> as
> > Robertb pointed out.
> >
>
> Oh, thanks, DNA. You could have put this a
> different way. Now I hope people go back and read
> what I wrote.


"others said it was a great experience"

That is what I was referring to, and I wasn't saying it in jest. I too have known some who found it to have been an enjoyable experience, so I'm seriously not doubting that it has happened.

My point was just that even if Marv also knows that some have enjoyed it, that doesn't mean that society shouldn't protect and have sanctions against it. The fact that some people enjoy something, shouldn't mean that it should be assumed to be no big deal.

I was just using your post as corroboration that it does happen, but the point was directed at Marv's use of the information.

It was just shocking to see you put it that way, alone. I'm not angry, just kind of "uh, uh, uh." The distinction I would make is it is more likely an older teen could have the experience and enjoy it and not be harmed. A younger teen, like the boy in question, much less so. Mixed feelings among victims is not unusual.

A woman therapist friend of mine years ago related she had a sexual relationship when she was 15 with a 30-year old man. She said it was positive for her. She had control in the relationship. Another therapist who was hearing this was shocked and insisted my friend must have been injured and was in denial.

I believed my friend, having spent a lot of time with her, but at the same time I thought the man she was involved with her was taking a terrible chance. There are others on both sides of such relationships for whom in turns out badly in many ways. There is a vast difference in maturity between 14 and 15 or 16 or 17 and between genders.

Other countries take a different approach to these issues, and perhaps those countries are what Mårv has in mind. Their approach may be better, given their culture, but we have what we have here. A good book on the complexities of the issue, pretty much guaranteed to make most people uncomfortable, is Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex by Judith Levine. She could hardly get a publisher and she has been accused of being sympathetic to child molesters. She isn't, but because she discusses the complexities of the issue rather than simply condemning, she's been open to accusation.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/09/2011 12:47PM by robertb.