I think I understand your point:
There is a difference when the person is of legal age. We are talking here only about minor children.
>>>The evidence certainly suggests some crimes took place, but each of those cases must be investigated and prosecuted separately.
Yes, but a child need not be abused or harmed for the crime of endangerment to have been committed. That’s my argument for what has happened here.
If it is shown that a parent placed their child in the control of someone who has ordered rape, and that they will allow the same crime to be done to their child if Jeffs (or anyone for that matter) wishes - I think that’s a clear and real danger to the child.
thanks for your reply.
Endangerment has to be a very specific threat, not a general belief in or membership in that cult. The parents are members and must abide by the rules which seem to indicate a particular lack of control over their children’s marriage decisions. The endangerment argument is invalid if the bride is 17 or the pair are 3 or less years apart (as I understand it). But endangerment would also be invalid if the threat of marriage is nonspecific (i.e. the parents are simply cult members). That would be collective punishment and highly infringing on freedom of religion.