I worry that it could in effect end up being like a case where a warrant is not obtained and even though evidence of a crime is found, the evidence ends up getting thrown out due to procedural impropriety.

My concern is that because it involves a "cult", the procedural impropriety will be ignored. "Cults" are too dangerous, you see, to muck about with all those legal technicalities like presumption of innocence and due process of law. I think everyone was put on notice about that in Waco. The Branch Davidians actually turned out to be quite crazy, but had the situation not been handled as a “cult” but rather according to normal legal standards, the outcome at least had a chance of being much less tragic for all involved.

Alas, Texas appears not to have bothered to learn that lesson.

It is a lose-lose situation when we start up with the “cult” rhetoric. Such labels can either serve to justify deviations from normal standards of due process OR they can function to isolate and alienate the group even further than it already is, justifying the paranoia of crazy leaders and leading to a backlash against society that exacerbates tragedy like it did in Waco. Either way, it is a stupid basis for any legal OR social reaction to marginal religious groupings.

making threats about harm coming to members who leave the group

Normal legal processes already involve prohibitions against both individual intimidation and threats of violence against individuals or groups. I think the term is "terroristic threats", actually. There exists no need to create a special legal standard for “cults”.

Jason, I’m not suggesting a special legal standard, but I think it’s odd that I can’t use the word "cult" without you reacting this way. I’ve already explained that I believe a legal standard is possible to distinguish a cult from an actual religion, so why would I not then use the term cult to mean what I said it would mean by that definition? One reason that I feel that such a definition IS necessary is to prevent actual religions from being labelled that way (if the legal definitions aren’t met.)

Since I’ve also already said that I understand and mostly agree with you about the specifics of the current case, I don’t know why you continue to rebut my arguments with those specifics. Let me try going at it this way: if the girl who’d made the phone call actually was found to exist, and preliminary signs verified her story, would Texas then be justified in removing all underage girls from the ranch in order for them to be examined for pregancies and/or signs of sexual abuse? Why or why not?

Interesting that a communal lifestyle is something that is "admitted", as if it was presumptively suspicious and shameful.
Interesting that you feel you can read my mind in that way. I didn’t mean any such thing; I used the word "admitted" only in the sense that the group  wasn’t contesting the fact that they live and raise their children in common instead of based on family groups with two biological parents. 

I actually wouldn’t have a problem with the court ordering physical examinations on all girls aged 10-16 from the compound based on what we appear to have evidence for. I consider the conduct of an investigation based upon the presence of clear and convincing evidence to warrant suspicion to be "normal legal procedures". But that would be a long way away from seizing all children of all ages and both genders and then making that seizure permanent before the investigation even begins.

And I do not agree, by the way, that it is possible to create an objective, non-pejorative, and non-arbitrary definition of what constitutes a “cult”. What appears to be authoritarian to an outsider appears merely to be submission to the word of God to an insider. And I don’t think we want outsiders (especially those with an axe to grind) empowered to make subjective determinations about where the line is. Unless there is somehow direct harm to others, I think legal consent is the only sustainable objective standard. Does that mean we would be giving people permission to engage in self-destructive behaviors? Yes. Just like we do when we don’t ban alcohol or tobacco or high-fat foods. Freedom includes the freedom to be irresponsible and self-destructive. The fleas come with the dog.

And we shouldn’t start banning self-destructive religious doctrines unless we want to start justifying the banning of self-destructive political doctrines also. Don’t you think that some of the more authoritarian types that write speech codes would be willing to extend the definition of “authoritarian cult” to include all conservatives? And once the precedent was set, don’t you think they might find some judges to go along?

I object to the word “cult” because I see it as no different from a racial slur. I surely don’t need to list out all the times it has been used to short-circuit neutral or fair-minded procedures in favor of a rush to judgment, do I? And the fact that the word is unnecessary highlights that its choice is intentional. Those who actually want to just refer to a religious group can use the word “sect”. It is also possible to identify its marginal sociological status or its authoritarian character by simply modifying the word “sect” with adjectives. Choosing the word “cult” is in my 15 years of experience with religious freedom issues a “red flag” that prejudice is in play.

Your second paragraph certainly defines the problem, and I agree with you that there’s a definite tension there- I just don’t agree that it’s unresolvable (and I’d presume, of course, that those with axes to grind aren’t the ones who’d be empowered to be the determiners.)

Re: your first paragraph, it’s more clear when you speak specifically that our opinions aren’t as far apart as they seem to be when you speak in generalities. The other day you wrote repeatedly about how important it was to treat each individual separately, so it seemed to me that you wouldn’t extend probable cause of danger to the female children beyond the initial investigation (that’s why I was going on about the ‘communal’ arrangements, because to me the prevailing law should treat that as one large family and in those cases where child abuse is suspected, generally all of the children would be examined for signs of abuse (or all female children if it’s sexual abuse by male against female child as is alleged in this case.)

Your second paragraph certainly defines the problem, and I agree with you that there’s a definite tension there- I just don’t agree that it’s unresolvable (and I’d presume, of course, that those with axes to grind aren’t the ones who’d be empowered to be the determiners.)

And what is your basis for that assumption? In differentiating what is and is not a "cult", courts would have to turn to experts to help them define the term. And the "anti-cult" movement is already a full-fledged profit-making industry featuring truly unbelievable amounts of bigots and charlatans (typical example). You think the people who make it their life’s work to tell lies and distortions about the "cults" that they hate would not be first in line to offer their services to the courts that would be newly empowered to give those prejudices the force of law?

This looks to be a decent discussion about the problems and challenges with constructing a neutral and non-pejorative definition of "cult". You can see at several points the kinds of problems that a court would face in trying to apply a definition in ways that would not infringe on civil liberties. For example:

Definitions advanced by ICSA associates imply that the term "cult" refers to a continuum, in which a large gray area separates "cult" from "noncult," or add qualifiers to the term "cult," such as "destructive." These definitions suggest that there may be some debate about the appropriateness of the term as applied to a specific group, especially when available evidence indicates that the group is in or near the gray area of the continuum. This debate can become more acute when the group in question is one that varies among its geographic locations, has different levels of membership with correspondingly different levels of commitment, has changed over time in the direction of greater or less "cultishness," or is skilled at public relations.

Because they tend to focus on certain practices and behaviors, the definitions advanced by ICSA associates are implicitly interactionist. Like all psychologically based models, they presume that different people will respond differently to the same group environment, much as twins can respond differently to the same family environment. Cults are not all alike. Nor are all cult members affected in the same way, even within the same group. Nevertheless, a huge body of clinical evidence leads ICSA associates to contend that some groups harm some members sometimes, and that some groups may be more likely to harm members than other groups.

If academics who specialize in defining the object of their study find it difficult to construct a comprehensive and consistent definition of a "cult", it is difficult to see how a court could apply such a standard when the stakes are not just a journal article, but the suspension of people’s civil liberties. More on point:

Much as people may wish that it were so, the fact is that, at least at present, no scientific “test” incontrovertibly establishes whether or not a group is indeed a “cult.” Although ICSA’s Group Psychological Abuse Scale (Chambers, Langone, Dole, & Grice, 1994) is a useful and promising tool for assessing groups scientifically, this self-report measure needs further psychometric development and should be supplemented by observational measures yet to be devised.

Note that the only available tool is imperfect and, even more seriously, relies on self-reporting which would clearly be completely invalid if the question was when to strip that person of the legal right to determine their own continuing membership in the alleged “cult”.

isn’t it still quite possible that this is because the kidnappings were successful and then the climate of fear kept others from being able to be corroborative witnesses?

Sure, it is possible. But the appropriate response to that possibility isn’t to simply assume the truth of any allegation that comes down the pike and act accordingly until innocence is somehow proven by a people systematically stripped of their rights including their right to testify on their own behalf about their own preferences (as this post as well as others imply we should dismiss the first-hand testimony of the FLDS women under the presumption that they are indoctrinated or controlled). Stepped up investigation is clearly warranted. Presumption of group guilt is anathema to basic principles of freedom and justice.