Child dies due to faith healing; parents get 6 months of jail time

[jabarto]

Seems there's been a lot of judicial misconduct lately. - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8294225.stm


Give people freedom of conscience, you thought police.

Your "freedom of conscience" ends when it intrudes on the rights of others.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Seems there's been a lot of judicial misconduct lately. - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8294225.stm



Your "freedom of conscience" ends when it intrudes on the rights of others.

Actually, I'd say that sentence was quite fair, really. A longer prison term would merely expose them to the viscitudes of the system, and wouldn't teach them anything. They aren't "bad" people.

As far as this case goes, there's not difference between a priest and a judge in this instance. That's why marriage has been defined as between a man and a woman in the UK.

[HoreTore]

Seems there's been a lot of judicial misconduct lately. - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8294225.stm

....Six months for MURDER?!??!?!

[HoreTore]

Hell, isn't the current POTUS a child of an interracial(even if short-lived) wedding? Some are really not awar of the era they're living in.....

Yup, and the worst kind too, with european mother and african father.

Dem blackies be stealin' our womenz!!11

[jabarto]

They aren't "bad" people.


I'm not a fan of egregious prison terms myself but good god, this is about as clear-cut as you can get; what they did was manslaughter and the judge should be disbarred.

[HoreTore]

I'm not a fan of egregious prison terms myself but good god, this is about as clear-cut as you can get; what they did was manslaughter and the judge should be disbarred.

I'd say it's a clear case of premeditated murder. The child had diabetes, that's not an "instant kill"-disease, the child would've been sick for years, and the parents refused her medical treatment all those years.

10 years minimum.

And yes, these people are bad people. They killed off their own child, that automatically makes you scum.

[Samurai Waki]

I'm not a fan of egregious prison terms myself but good god, this is about as clear-cut as you can get; what they did was manslaughter and the judge should be disbarred.

Agreed... the whole case had the horrendous stench of favoritism, after reading case notes on it. The prosecution even seemed to be less than enthusiastic about putting these people in prison. It should get an IA Review, but I doubt that will happen.

[jabarto]

And I just found out about another similar case from a while back. I think I'll make a new thread for this topic so this one doesn't get derailed. :sweatdrop:

[jabarto]

This is a continuation of something I posted in the thread about the judge refusing to marry interracial couples.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8294225.stm

So the basic story here is that an 11 year old girl died because her parents refused to secure medical attention for her, favoring "faith healing" instead. Surely they get slapped with manslaughter charges, right? Nope. They get 6 months in jail, and not even a continuous sentence.

And a similar example from much earlier:

http://oregonfaithreport.com/2009/10/details-emerge-over-faith-healing-death-of-child/

The judge should be disbarred and the parents should get manslaughter - if not homicide - charges. But beyond that, I can't help but wonder aloud if this sort of thing would fly if the parent's were any religion other than Christian.

So anyway, we've got an ineffctual jail term, a crooked judge, and a dead child. I'm really at a loss for words here.

[HoreTore]

As I said in the other thread; this is premeditated murder. Diabetes isn't something that kills instantly, so they've known about it for years and not done anything at all.

10 years minimum. deleted by moderator

And to top it off; it wouldn't surprise me if these people were "pro-life"...

[Idaho]

But beyond that, I can't help but wonder aloud if this sort of thing would fly if the parent's were any religion other than Christian.

Not only would it not fly, but the respective religion would be vilified and condemned.

[jabarto]

As I said in the other thread; this is premeditated murder. Diabetes isn't something that kills instantly, so they've known about it for years and not done anything at all.

10 years minimum. With the customary prison rapes, of course.

And to top it off; it wouldn't surprise me if these people were "pro-life"...

That reminds me of a post I read on the forum where I first read about this:


I know KillerJunglist posted on this a few pages back, but I think it's really necessary to step away from the religious side of the argument taking place to remind everyone of just how much of a painful death this couple's daughter died:

I've been an insulin-dependent diabetic since I was five. I've run up both sides of the blood sugar scale, from having seizures on the low end to ending up in the hospital due to extreme ketoacidosis on the high end. Does anyone know what ketoacidosis is?

1) If you cannot produce or process enough insulin, your blood sugar starts to rise. Unfortunately for diabetics, insulin is the only method of processing glucose in the blood.

2) Your body has three sources of energy: carbohydrates, fat, and muscle. If you cannot process carbohydrates, it moves to burning fat. Using fat as an energy source releases acids into your muscle tissue; the effect feels something like your entire body being on fire every time you move. It hurts to breathe.

3) As you continue downwards, you get nauseous. With a blood sugar over 600 mg/dl, most glucometers can't even measure what your actual reading is. You have to piss every ten minutes, and if you can control your stomach, you want to puke every half hour or so.

4) Once your body cannot burn fat as an energy source any more, it moves on to burning muscles. The level of pain you experience here is almost beyond words; you can't even move without crying in agony. You're about a day away from dying.

I've had this happen enough times to know that you don't want to get any further than (3). I have ended up in the hospital after reaching this point. To see that this girl actually died from this sort of problem. The very idea that "faith" would somehow kick about 50 units of insulin into her bloodstream is laughable at best, and deplorable at worst.

My only hope is that these people will get their asses handed to them in appeals court for being stupid [snip] who can't wrap their heads around the idea that waiting around for God to save their daughter wasn't working by day 2.

That said, I wouldn't take the wishing of prison rape on them lightly.

[HoreTore]

That said, I wouldn't take the wishing of prison rape on them lightly.

Do something against children, and you're the lowest of the low in a prison. Violence and gang rapes are unavoidable, really. Basic prison justice...

At least that's how it works here....

[naut]

A friend of mine had a brilliant idea.

They should get 6 months community service in a hospital. Then they could see first hand the power of modern medicine. And if they still don't get the message, send them to prison.

[InsaneApache]

As Tribes is away on 'gardening leave', I'll fill in for him.

Bollox. :laugh4:

[Strike For The South]

Idoits.

I'm pretty sure this falls under the clear and present danger statue we use to put away the communists, why can't we use that here.

[LittleGrizzly]

Just out of casual interest did they use faith defence...? Or would it just be silly to not get a professional and wait for god to magic up your desired outcome ?

Maybe thier waiting on a faith escape....

[Rhyfelwyr]

Amazing how the same people who said people were "sick" for wanting that Belgian guy that stabbed all those babies to get a longer sentence, suddenly demand justice for people who caused their child's death through their religious beliefs.

I thought it was all about rehabilitation? How is prison supposed to 'rehabilitate' these people?

[Louis VI the Fat]

One parent will serve the term in March and the other in September. The judge told the Neumanns this would give them time to "think about Kara and what God wants you to learn from this".

He added that they were "very good people, raising their family, who made a bad decision, a reckless decision". He added: "God probably works through other people, some of them doctors." I'm more worried about this than about the death of the child. Outrageous. A judge of the same cult judging fellow cultists.

America has a law, and reason. That ought to be the guiding principle of a judge. Not the membership or not of the same persuasion as s/he himself.

Faith replacing medicine, and cult membership replacing justice. What a travesty. This would not not stand if race instead of faith was at the basis of this case. ('You are good White people. I'll excuse you for killing a negro. The White race works through your hands')

///

I think six months is about right. My sense of justice does not really cry for excessively long imprisonment.
These parents are a mere symptom of a larger wrong. They were send as children to authorities who told them a Supreme Being interferes in their lives. Talks to them directly. Hears their prayers. They were told by another authority, their teacher, that this Being created the world by his own hands, and that they should mistrust rational science. They are told as adults by another authority, a judge, that this Supreme Being will be the one to pass judgement on them, so that He should be the guiding principle of their conscience and their actions, instead of the words and deeds of their fellow man.

So all that is their fault, really, is actually taking these authorities for their word.

Perhaps interpreting their words unconventionally. Who can blame them? 'Jesus heals, you need to pray, he will hear you! Oh, but you do need to call a doctor, because Jesus might, in fact, not hear you after all'. This ambiguity is too much for most minds.


So I say, in a theocracy, as is the case here, one can scarcely blame the individual. Not these small-minded simple folk, but their judge, their creationist teacher and their priest should stand trial.

[Strike For The South]

I'm more worried about this than about the death of the child. Outrageous. A judge of the same cult judging fellow cultists.

America has a law, and reason. That ought to be the guiding principle of a judge. Not the membership or not of the same persuasion as s/he himself.

Faith replacing medicine, and cult membership replacing justice. What a travesty. This would not not stand if race instead of faith was at the basis of this case. ('You are good White people. I'll excuse you for killing a negro. The White race works through your hands')

///

I think six months is about right. My sense of justice does not really cry for excessively long imprisonment.
These parents are a mere symptom of a larger wrong. They were send as children to authorities who told them a Supreme Being interferes in their lives. Talks to them directly. Hears their prayers. They were told by another authority, their teacher, that this Being created the world by his own hands, and that they should mistrust rational science. They are told as adults by another authority, a judge, that this Supreme Being will be the one to pass judgement on them, so that He should be the guiding principle of their conscience and their actions, instead of the words and deeds of their fellow man.

So all that is their fault, really, is actually taking these authorities for their word.

Perhaps interpreting their words unconventionally. Who can blame them? 'Jesus will heal, you need to pray, he will hear you! Oh, but you do need to call a doctor, because he really want'. This ambiguity is too much for most minds.


So I say, in a theocracy, as is the case here, one can scarcely blame the individual. Not these smallminded simple folk, but their judge, their creationist teacher and their priest should stand trial.



:music:

[Andres]

I'm more worried about this than about the death of the child. Outrageous. A judge of the same cult judging fellow cultists.

America has a law, and reason. That ought to be the guiding principle of a judge. Not the membership or not of the same persuasion as s/he himself.

Faith replacing medicine, and cult membership replacing justice. What a travesty. This would not not stand if race instead of faith was at the basis of this case. ('You are good White people. I'll excuse you for killing a negro. The White race works through your hands')

///

I concur.

What about the impartiality of the judge? Isn't that a fundamental principle in the US as well? This judge is clearly not impartial. A disgrace :thumbsdown:

To make it worse, he brings God into his judgement. Religion has nothing to do with the law and doesn't belong in the motivation of a verdict :thumbsdown:

[Samurai Waki]

I concur.

What about the impartiality of the judge? Isn't that a fundamental principle in the US as well? This judge is clearly not impartial. A disgrace :thumbsdown:

To make it worse, he brings God into his judgement. Religion has nothing to do with the law and doesn't belong in the motivation of a verdict :thumbsdown:

Yep. We were just talking about this today during class. I wouldn't think Wisconsin would be so daft as to chair an outspoken Christian Judge to rule on a case involving the Christian Religion. The state messed up big time, but like I said, I'm not sure if it warrants The BIA commissioning a Review of the Case, just because they disagree with the verdict. Either way, they're trying to get an appeal, and they may have messed up big time in making that decision, if the next Judge feels they got off too lightly.

[jabarto]

EDIT: Nevermind, misread the article I was going to post. :sweatdrop: Nothing to see here.

[Papewaio]

Meh, it doesn't matter what they believe, Evolution wins yet again. :2thumbsup:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Meh, it doesn't matter what they believe, Evolution wins yet again. :2thumbsup:

What?

[Beskar]

He is claiming Social Darwinism.

[naut]

Meh, it doesn't matter what they believe, Evolution wins yet again. :2thumbsup:
In a morbid way I concur.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I'm more worried about this than about the death of the child. Outrageous. A judge of the same cult judging fellow cultists.

America has a law, and reason. That ought to be the guiding principle of a judge. Not the membership or not of the same persuasion as s/he himself.

Faith replacing medicine, and cult membership replacing justice. What a travesty. This would not not stand if race instead of faith was at the basis of this case. ('You are good White people. I'll excuse you for killing a negro. The White race works through your hands')

///

I think six months is about right. My sense of justice does not really cry for excessively long imprisonment.
These parents are a mere symptom of a larger wrong. They were send as children to authorities who told them a Supreme Being interferes in their lives. Talks to them directly. Hears their prayers. They were told by another authority, their teacher, that this Being created the world by his own hands, and that they should mistrust rational science. They are told as adults by another authority, a judge, that this Supreme Being will be the one to pass judgement on them, so that He should be the guiding principle of their conscience and their actions, instead of the words and deeds of their fellow man.

So all that is their fault, really, is actually taking these authorities for their word.

Perhaps interpreting their words unconventionally. Who can blame them? 'Jesus heals, you need to pray, he will hear you! Oh, but you do need to call a doctor, because Jesus might, in fact, not hear you after all'. This ambiguity is too much for most minds.


So I say, in a theocracy, as is the case here, one can scarcely blame the individual. Not these small-minded simple folk, but their judge, their creationist teacher and their priest should stand trial.

Wonderful post, Louis. :bow:

[Papewaio]

What I'm saying is that they have already been sentenced by the laws of nature. Our justice system pales in comparison to them cutting off the branches of their own tree.

The happiness is not aimed at the death of the child, it is aimed at how puny our system of laws is compared with the laws of nature. Ours we can plead, bargin, parole, get let off. The other always gets its man and is fair in a very unforgiving manner. Mind you just because we all die doesn't mean we should be giving the system an assist.

[Viking]

Until faith healing or similar has been shown to have genetical connections, I remain unconvinced that we're actually witnessing some sort of evolution..

[Idaho]

He added that they were "very good people, raising their family, who made a bad decision, a reckless decision". He added: "God probably works through other people, some of them doctors."

Actually the history of medicine has shown that God, through his church minions (and as god doesn't exist, therefore the church minions are god) have been openly hostile to the kind of science and understanding that has brought us modern medicine.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Meh, it doesn't matter what they believe, Evolution wins yet again. :2thumbsup:Too harsh Pape, too harsh.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm more worried about this than about the death of the child. Outrageous. A judge of the same cult judging fellow cultists.

America has a law, and reason. That ought to be the guiding principle of a judge. Not the membership or not of the same persuasion as s/he himself.

Faith replacing medicine, and cult membership replacing justice. What a travesty. This would not not stand if race instead of faith was at the basis of this case. ('You are good White people. I'll excuse you for killing a negro. The White race works through your hands')

///

I think six months is about right. My sense of justice does not really cry for excessively long imprisonment.
These parents are a mere symptom of a larger wrong. They were send as children to authorities who told them a Supreme Being interferes in their lives. Talks to them directly. Hears their prayers. They were told by another authority, their teacher, that this Being created the world by his own hands, and that they should mistrust rational science. They are told as adults by another authority, a judge, that this Supreme Being will be the one to pass judgement on them, so that He should be the guiding principle of their conscience and their actions, instead of the words and deeds of their fellow man.

So all that is their fault, really, is actually taking these authorities for their word.

Perhaps interpreting their words unconventionally. Who can blame them? 'Jesus heals, you need to pray, he will hear you! Oh, but you do need to call a doctor, because Jesus might, in fact, not hear you after all'. This ambiguity is too much for most minds.


So I say, in a theocracy, as is the case here, one can scarcely blame the individual. Not these small-minded simple folk, but their judge, their creationist teacher and their priest should stand trial.


I concur.

What about the impartiality of the judge? Isn't that a fundamental principle in the US as well? This judge is clearly not impartial. A disgrace :thumbsdown:

To make it worse, he brings God into his judgement. Religion has nothing to do with the law and doesn't belong in the motivation of a verdict :thumbsdown:


Actually the history of medicine has shown that God, through his church minions (and as god doesn't exist, therefore the church minions are god) have been openly hostile to the kind of science and understanding that has brought us modern medicine.

Interesting posts all round, but missing a crucial point. These people are unlikely to cease believing in God, so lambasting their religion is pointless, unless you just want to assert your intellectual superiority. That seems to be what people are doing here.

These people are not murderous, they are misguided and a longer prison term would not solve this. Telling them, "God would have wanted you to call a docter" is both a more effective punishment and has a better chance of changing their behaviour. Under the circumstances, the Judge's sentence is probably the best that can be managed.

[Idaho]

These people are not murderous, they are misguided and a longer prison term would not solve this. Telling them, "God would have wanted you to call a docter" is both a more effective punishment and has a better chance of changing their behaviour. Under the circumstances, the Judge's sentence is probably the best that can be managed.

One of the things I can never square with the religious is that there is an arbitrary line drawn by each religious person between "god's will", "me following god's will", "me interpretting god's will". What this basically means is that a religious person can do nothing, choose to do something with doctrinal justification, choose to do something with general justification. All the while claiming that god is responsible for it all.

[Andres]

Interesting posts all round, but missing a crucial point. These people are unlikely to cease believing in God, so lambasting their religion is pointless, unless you just want to assert your intellectual superiority. That seems to be what people are doing here.

These people are not murderous, they are misguided and a longer prison term would not solve this. Telling them, "God would have wanted you to call a docter" is both a more effective punishment and has a better chance of changing their behaviour. Under the circumstances, the Judge's sentence is probably the best that can be managed.

I think you're missing my point.

The impartiality of the judge is a fundamental principle of your legal system. Even appearing to be not impartial is enough to be problematic and make the judgement invalid (at least, that's how it is in Belgium). This judge at least appears to be biased and prejudiced. I take it you don't want biased judges.

I also fail to see why he needs to refer to God and religion in the motivation of his judgement. The only motivations should be legal ones, not religious. I hope you can see the dangers of bringing religion as a law making factor into your judicial system. If that's something that wouldn't make you feel uncomfortable, then there's probably no point for us to discuss this together.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

One of the things I can never square with the religious is that there is an arbitrary line drawn by each religious person between "god's will", "me following god's will", "me interpretting god's will". What this basically means is that a religious person can do nothing, choose to do something with doctrinal justification, choose to do something with general justification. All the while claiming that god is responsible for it all.

There is? I thought is was the opposite, the line is almost impossible to see. Maybe you should try talking to Christians that aren't from Belmont Chapel and don't stand in the middle of the High Street on a saturday with a megaphone.


I think you're missing my point.

The impartiality of the judge is a fundamental principle of your legal system. Even appearing to be not impartial is enough to be problematic and make the judgement invalid (at least, that's how it is in Belgium). This judge at least appears to be biased and prejudiced. I take it you don't want biased judges.

I also fail to see why he needs to refer to God and religion in the motivation of his judgement. The only motivations should be legal ones, not religious. I hope you can see the dangers of bringing religion as a law making factor into your judicial system. If that's something that wouldn't make you feel uncomfortable, then there's probably no point for us to discuss this together.

My Judicial system is ultimately overseen by a theocratic monarch, perhaps you are thinking of the American legal system?

Regardless, I see no evidence that the Judge used Christianity in his judgement any more than you would expect (to expect anyone not to apply their principles to judgements is absurd). I assume the conviction came from a jury trial, and the comments from the Judge are from his public delivery of of his judgement, when he addressed the convicted.

[Andres]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it so that in the US the jury decides if the suspect is guilty or not and the punishment itself is decided by the judge.

These people could have received up to 25 years. The judge had to make a decision on the punishment. Allthough I don't necessarily disagree with 6 months, the motivation seems at least partially inspired by the judges' own beliefs and thus the judge has not been impartial, or at least, does not appear to have been impartial when taking his decision.

He also appears to bring religion into his decision making. The only thing that matters is the law and nothing but the law.


:shrug:




(to expect anyone not to apply their principles to judgements is absurd).


No, it's not.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it so that in the US the jury decides if the suspect is guilty or not and the punishment itself is decided by the judge.

These people could have received up to 25 years. The judge had to make a decision on the punishment. Allthough I don't necessarily disagree with 6 months, the motivation seems at least partially inspired by the judges' own beliefs and thus the judge has not been impartial, or at least, does not appear to have been impartial when taking his decision.

He also appears to bring religion into his decision making. The only thing that matters is the law and nothing but the law.

:shrug:

No, it's not.

Yes, trial by jury is basic to the U.S. legal system in all 50 states and all U.S. possessions. Religion is held to be relevant only to the extent that religious doctrines underly -- in a historical sense -- many of the codified laws in this union. It is NOT held to be directly relevant. However, the freedom of religion IS held to be a basic right, and most of the classic defense of such cases rests on this basic right superceding any other authorities' ability to condemn the actions of believers in these instances.

Judges are required to administer the procedures of the court impartially according to the legal and procedural codes of the polity sanctioning their efforts. In most instances, Judges are the ones charged with sentencing offenders once guilt has been determined (certain states limit this power with mandated sentences for some/all offenses).

From the limited points quoted in the article, it cannot be presumed that the judge was also an avid Christian Scientist. He may have referenced God more as a means of "reaching" the two persons being sentenced than in any authoritative way. I'd need to look at the whole sentencing document to know for sure.

[Andres]

I'd need to look at the whole sentencing document to know for sure.

Will it be made publically available on the internet?

I like reading US judgements; they're much more pleasant to read than our verdicts which are usually written in horrible and archaic French/Dutch :shrug:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

These are public record material. They are not automatically posted on the internet, but usually end up there after a "Freedom of Information" request is filed. Currently, you can find the original complaint and one motion to dismiss using:

State of Wisconsin -vs- Dale R. Neumann


I suspect the ruling will be available in due course.

[Strike For The South]

What I'm saying is that they have already been sentenced by the laws of nature. Our justice system pales in comparison to them cutting off the branches of their own tree.

The happiness is not aimed at the death of the child, it is aimed at how puny our system of laws is compared with the laws of nature. Ours we can plead, bargin, parole, get let off. The other always gets its man and is fair in a very unforgiving manner. Mind you just because we all die doesn't mean we should be giving the system an assist.


Meh, it doesn't matter what they believe, Evolution wins yet again. :2thumbsup:

And they let you wear green?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The happiness is not aimed at the death of the child, it is aimed at how puny our system of laws is compared with the laws of nature. Ours we can plead, bargin, parole, get let off. The other always gets its man and is fair in a very unforgiving manner. Mind you just because we all die doesn't mean we should be giving the system an assist.

But we as a people evolved to be religious because historically it has been a big advantage. So the child dying is a loss for evolution not "A win for evolution :2thumbsup:".

[HoreTore]

Amazing how the same people who said people were "sick" for wanting that Belgian guy that stabbed all those babies to get a longer sentence, suddenly demand justice for people who caused their child's death through their religious beliefs.

I thought it was all about rehabilitation? How is prison supposed to 'rehabilitate' these people?

Unless you believe that being religious is a psychological illness, I don't see the relevance.

That guy should be sent to forced mental treatment, not prison, if he was found to be mentally ill, like we do with all other mentally ill people. I don't see why people thinks that's somehow a lower punishment though, a being forced in a mental hospital is basically the same thing as a prison, except that it's tailored to the needs of the mentally ill, so that they get a shot at rehabilitation. Also, in a mental hospital you don't have a time limit. You stay there until you're healthy or die.

As I haven't heard anyone claim that these people are mentally ill, it's prison time for them. They killed their own child, that usually gets you around 10 years in prison. I don't see any any circumstances here that should reduce their sentence, so 10 years it is.


That being said though, I wouldn't object to their priests, etc taking some of the blame/punishment too.

[miotas]

Unless you believe that being religious is a psychological illness, I don't see the relevance.

That guy should be sent to forced mental treatment, not prison, if he was found to be mentally ill, like we do with all other mentally ill people. I don't see why people thinks that's somehow a lower punishment though, a being forced in a mental hospital is basically the same thing as a prison, except that it's tailored to the needs of the mentally ill, so that they get a shot at rehabilitation. Also, in a mental hospital you don't have a time limit. You stay there until you're healthy or die.

As I haven't heard anyone claim that these people are mentally ill, it's prison time for them.

They watched their child die slowly, suffering excruciating pain, without seeking medical treatment. Hardly the actions of a sane mind. I believe they should be in a mental institution.


They killed their own child, that usually gets you around 10 years in prison. I don't see any any circumstances here that should reduce their sentence, so 10 years it is.

I would say that it was manslaughter by gross criminal negligence rather than murder, they didn't intend to kill their child, but their staggering stupidity resulted in their child's death regardless. What's more worrying is that they are still allowed to look after their own remaining children.

[HoreTore]

They watched their child die slowly, suffering excruciating pain, without seeking medical treatment. Hardly the actions of a sane mind. I believe they should be in a mental institution.

That's for the psychiatrists to decide. If they are found to be insane, then of course they belong in a mental institution. But remember that Josef Fritzl was found to be sane...

[Meneldil]

They watched their child die slowly, suffering excruciating pain, without seeking medical treatment. Hardly the actions of a sane mind. I believe they should be in a mental institution.


Well, that's where the double standard comes into play.
If you do something crazy because you think you're God, Napoléon, Ceasar or a Jupiterian, you go to a mental institution.
If you do something crazy because of your religion, people will say it's a cultural thingy, and that the responsible shouldn't be punished in an overly harsh way. Except if he's muslim because those have quite a - well deserved IMO - bad reputation at the moment.

[KukriKhan]

I don't understand this inconsistency: If you believe The Lord will heal your kid through prayer alone, why would you plead anything in a court of law? Would you not stand mute, offer no defense, and pray The Lord to deliver you from teh evil court?

[Kralizec]

Well, that's where the double standard comes into play.
If you do something crazy because you think you're God, Napoléon, Ceasar or a Jupiterian, you go to a mental institution.
If you do something crazy because of your religion, people will say it's a cultural thingy, and that the responsible shouldn't be punished in an overly harsh way. Except if he's muslim because those have quite a - well deserved IMO - bad reputation at the moment.

Precisely.

I don't care if people are religious as long as they don't do something harmful to others because of it. I don't think that it would do any good to lock these two away for decades, as I assume they didn't mean for this to happen and are sad themselves, but that they don't get forced into some sort of therapy is mind boggling.

Wether this is because of the judge is an outspoken christian too - I think that a lot of atheists would also hesistate before branding this sort of "divine interventionism" a disorder, sadly.

[HoreTore]

I don't care if people are religious as long as they don't do something harmful to others because of it. I don't think that it would do any good to lock these two away for decades, as I assume they didn't mean for this to happen and are sad themselves, but that they don't get forced into some sort of therapy is mind boggling.

Alright then, answer me this:

I have a huge fight with my wife of 15 years, the mother of my 3 kids. She's cheating, and the marriage is likely to end. I spend the evening drinking and crying. In the middle of the night, drunk as hell, I cannot stand being alone anymore, I need someone to talk to, or else who knows what I might do? I get in the car - and I run over and kill your only son(and you're sterile now).

Should I get punished? If so, then just a little or hard?

[Kralizec]

I'd be more lenient with you than with most DIU'ers, but still some jailtime with a long probation.

What does that have to do with the topic?

[HoreTore]

I'd be more lenient with you than with most DIU'ers, but still some jailtime with a long probation.

What does that have to do with the topic?

This:


I assume they didn't mean for this to happen and are sad themselves

I never meant to run over anybody, and honestly I didn't mean to DIU at all, my life was falling to pieces remember. And honestly it's that cheating whore's fault... Anyway, I'm also extremely saddened by the death and it will probably haunt me until I die.



So, why can't I get that one month of jail per year that you gave to the others? My offense was one of circumstance and instant, theirs took place over at least months, maybe years, surely I should get an even lighter sentence?

[ajaxfetish]

So, why can't I get that one month of jail per year that you gave to the others? My offense was one of circumstance and instant, theirs took place over at least months, maybe years, surely I should get an even lighter sentence?
When did Kralizec suggest they get one month of jail per year (and what do you even mean by one month per year?)? He suggested they shouldn't be locked away for decades, and should get therapy. That could still easily mean numerous years in jail. He also suggested a lighter sentence then usual considering your circumstances. Looking at what he's said, he could easily assign you a lighter sentence than the couple in question.

Ajax

[HoreTore]

When did Kralizec suggest they get one month of jail per year (and what do you even mean by one month per year?)?

That was the punishment given by the court in this case.

[ajaxfetish]

And I didn't see Kralizec say anything about supporting it.

Ajax

[HoreTore]

And I didn't see Kralizec say anything about supporting it.

Ajax

....and at that, you are correct. :bow:

It seems I've been reading things quicker than I should've.... Anyway, I blame the swine flu.

yes, I actually do have it.... otherwise I would've been at work now instead of posting here :clown:

[InsaneApache]

You can post with the flu? :inquisitive:

Blimey when I had it last christmas I couldn't move off the couch for 4 days. Even peed in a bucket. I'm impressed at your indefatigability. :bow:

[HoreTore]

You can post with the flu? :inquisitive:

Blimey when I had it last christmas I couldn't move off the couch for 4 days. Even peed in a bucket. I'm impressed at your indefatigability. :bow:

Ah, but you don't have my Mighty Viking constitution! ~;)

The hard part(40 in fever) lasted 12 hours before I killed it with painkillers.... The rest of the time, like now, I'm walking about as I please. Inside my apartment, that is... I've gotten a hard reminder that I'm sick every time I've walked the 50 meters to the postbox and picked up the newspaper in the morning these days.... Those 50 meters are a killer.

[Crazed Rabbit]

What would people's thoughts be on a similar situation where the parents counted on homeopathy to heal their child instead of taking them to a hospital?

CR

[Kralizec]

What would people's thoughts be on a similar situation where the parents counted on homeopathy to heal their child instead of taking them to a hospital?

CR

The same for me.
If a couple kills one of their children by putting their faith in quasi-science or faith healing, they should be put in jail.

What usually makes these cases hard to decide is when they have other children as well. I don't think that locking both parents away for multiple years and putting the rest of the children in foster care would be the ideal solution in most cases.

[miotas]

What would people's thoughts be on a similar situation where the parents counted on homeopathy to heal their child instead of taking them to a hospital?

CR

There was a case here in australia about 6 months back http://www.smh.com.au/national/parents-guilty-of-manslaughter-over-daughters-eczema-death-20090605-bxvx.html

I say it's the same, I would have nothing against them trying it, but if it doesn't seem to be working then they should go straight to the doctors.

[Beskar]

You can post with the flu? :inquisitive:

Blimey when I had it last christmas I couldn't move off the couch for 4 days. Even peed in a bucket. I'm impressed at your indefatigability. :bow:

He had man-flu.

[HoreTore]

What would people's thoughts be on a similar situation where the parents counted on homeopathy to heal their child instead of taking them to a hospital?

CR

Why on earth would that change anything at all? You think this is just some crusade on "the poor christians"...?

Vegans starving their kid, christians killing it by not taking it to a hospital, I don't care. I doesn't matter what your beliefs are, if they caused the death of your kid, then you're a murderer in my opinion.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Why on earth would that change anything at all? You think this is just some crusade on "the poor christians"...?

Vegans starving their kid, christians killing it by not taking it to a hospital, I don't care. I doesn't matter what your beliefs are, if they caused the death of your kid, then you're a murderer in my opinion.

What if they died because of the invasiveness of "modern medicine"? That sort of perspective cuts both ways.

[miotas]

If it was something incurable like some form of cancer, then it would be a different story since we know of nothing that can save them, so try anything in the hopes that it may work, but when we are talking ******* diabetes then it is an entirely different matter.

[Idaho]

There is? I thought is was the opposite, the line is almost impossible to see. Maybe you should try talking to Christians that aren't from Belmont Chapel and don't stand in the middle of the High Street on a saturday with a megaphone.

Is that where they are from? They really are giving it the hard sell.

I have no problem with christians. Nor any other religious people. As long as they accept that it's all just a happy sounding fantasy that they enjoy believing ;)

[Crazed Rabbit]

Why on earth would that change anything at all? You think this is just some crusade on "the poor christians"...?

Vegans starving their kid, christians killing it by not taking it to a hospital, I don't care. I doesn't matter what your beliefs are, if they caused the death of your kid, then you're a murderer in my opinion.

So if you bring your kids to a hospital, the doctors perform a procedure they say is necessary, and that procedure ends up killing the child, then you're guilty of murder?

CR

[HoreTore]

What if they died because of the invasiveness of "modern medicine"? That sort of perspective cuts both ways.

This kid would never have died if she was taken to a hospital; diabetes is easily treatable.

Anyway, I don't understand your question. Do you believe that because doctors occasionally makes mistakes and those mistakes result in deaths, that doctors are unimportant and we should throw away modern medicine...?

Find some statistics on life expectancy during the times of "pray the ill away" and compare them with those we have now.

[A Very Super Market]

So if you bring your kids to a hospital, the doctors perform a procedure they say is necessary, and that procedure ends up killing the child, then you're guilty of murder?

CR

You build a house on unstable ground. You try and add more supports to it but it still ends up collapsing. Contrast that with attempting to dance the ground into hardening.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Is that where they are from? They really are giving it the hard sell.

I have no problem with christians. Nor any other religious people. As long as they accept that it's all just a happy sounding fantasy that they enjoy believing ;)

Stop with the backhanders, if you please.

Anyway, yes, Belmont is a factory that produces little Christian soldiers and their timid little wives. Their chief "elder" gave the "talk" (he refused to call it a sermon) at th3e Ecumunical service at the Cathedral.

It produced angry muttering from everyone else.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This kid would never have died if she was taken to a hospital; diabetes is easily treatable.

Anyway, I don't understand your question. Do you believe that because doctors occasionally makes mistakes and those mistakes result in deaths, that doctors are unimportant and we should throw away modern medicine...?

Find some statistics on life expectancy during the times of "pray the ill away" and compare them with those we have now.

Read up on Paradigms, then you'll understand my point.

[HoreTore]

So if you bring your kids to a hospital, the doctors perform a procedure they say is necessary, and that procedure ends up killing the child, then you're guilty of murder?

CR

Nope. Doctors are the best we've got. Nothing else comes even remotely close in terms of success, and it's certainly better than any make-believe stuff, like "applejuice is all mah baby needs!!". They don't succeed all the time, but it's the most we can do.


Read up on Paradigms, then you'll understand my point.

I have little time for fables.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I have little time for fables.

So you don't know what a Paradigm Shift is, then?

[HoreTore]

So you don't know what a Paradigm Shift is, then?

You said "Paradigm". There are about a billion things named "Paradigm" in the world, and yes, it's also another word for "fable".

Anyway, I really don't care. I know you're just trying to be clever, but that's the very thing making me very uninterested.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You said "Paradigm". There are about a billion things named "Paradigm" in the world, and yes, it's also another word for "fable".

Anyway, I really don't care. I know you're just trying to be clever, but that's the very thing making me very uninterested.

Well I'm not trying to be clever, and you obviously do care because you're in the thread.

Look at it this way, modern Medicine is the current Paradigm, 500 years ago the Paradigm was the diametric opposite. So, should they have sent people to gaol for using anasethic back then?

[HoreTore]

Well I'm not trying to be clever, and you obviously do care because you're in the thread.

Look at it this way, modern Medicine is the current Paradigm, 500 years ago the Paradigm was the diametric opposite. So, should they have sent people to gaol for using anasethic back then?

...........................


Fail?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

...........................


Fail?

Answer the question? Would it have been right for the authorities of the time, based on the best available evidence, to punish people for using anasthetic?

[HoreTore]

Answer the question? Would it have been right for the authorities of the time, based on the best available evidence, to punish people for using anasthetic?

Uhm................ No. Modern medicine isn't just a "paradigm", modern medicine is an actual and proven way to save peoples lives. Prayer isn't.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Uhm................ No. Modern medicine isn't just a "paradigm", modern medicine is an actual and proven way to save peoples lives. Prayer isn't.

That's exactly what they said 500 years ago as well. They executed people for using anasthetic back then, by the way.

My point is this, people should not be punished for holding a belief and then acting upon it, so long as they act in good faith. Clearly, these parents were responsible for the welfare of their child and they failed specacularly. However, punishing them for doing what they believed to be right is pointless, and therefore clruel and vindictive.

They need to be educated and there's precious little education to be had in prison.

[Viking]

That's exactly what they said 500 years ago as well. They executed people for using anasthetic back then, by the way.

My point is this, people should not be punished for holding a belief and then acting upon it, so long as they act in good faith. Clearly, these parents were responsible for the welfare of their child and they failed specacularly. However, punishing them for doing what they believed to be right is pointless, and therefore clruel and vindictive.

They need to be educated and there's precious little education to be had in prison.

They didn't live their entire lives in a remote forest, did they?

[HoreTore]

That's exactly what they said 500 years ago as well. They executed people for using anasthetic back then, by the way.

Who cares what they said 500 years ago? People were ignored SoB's back then, who gives a :daisy: what they were thinking? The bottom line remains the same; doctors save people. Priests bury them.


My point is this, people should not be punished for holding a belief and then acting upon it, so long as they act in good faith. Clearly, these parents were responsible for the welfare of their child and they failed specacularly. However, punishing them for doing what they believed to be right is pointless, and therefore clruel and vindictive.

They need to be educated and there's precious little education to be had in prison.

Viking put it brilliantly.

And yes, I do believe that these people belong in jail, for all the reasons we normally put people in jail for. First off, they killed their child. It didn't "die", it was murdered. Secondly, we as a society needs to give out the message that "No, killing off your child because of your backwater beliefs are NOT ok!". We need to make sure that this will never, ever happen again. Every lunatic parent out there should be forced to realize that they are responsible for any offspring in their care, and that refusal to seek medical care will be met with consequences.

This isn't about these two idiots. This is about the innocent children unlucky enough to be bred by such people. They need protection from parents like these, just like they need protection from parents who beat them every time they come home from the pub.

This is torture of innocent children. And there's simply no excuse for it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Who cares what they said 500 years ago? People were ignored SoB's back then, who gives a :daisy: what they were thinking? The bottom line remains the same; doctors save people. Priests bury them.

They were very clever 500 years ago, they made the best decisions based on the available evidence. The point is very imprtant, because in 500 years someone may try to call you a "ingored SoB". Take a moment to consider this.


Viking put it brilliantly.

And yes, I do believe that these people belong in jail, for all the reasons we normally put people in jail for. First off, they killed their child. It didn't "die", it was murdered. Secondly, we as a society needs to give out the message that "No, killing off your child because of your backwater beliefs are NOT ok!". We need to make sure that this will never, ever happen again. Every lunatic parent out there should be forced to realize that they are responsible for any offspring in their care, and that refusal to seek medical care will be met with consequences.

This isn't about these two idiots. This is about the innocent children unlucky enough to be bred by such people. They need protection from parents like these, just like they need protection from parents who beat them every time they come home from the pub.

This is torture of innocent children. And there's simply no excuse for it.

Maybe you don't have the concept of mens rea in Norway? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea Thankfully we have it in England and the US. Murder requires a very specific mens rea, unless you can demonstrate that it's just manslaughter.

Stop trying to cloud the issue with emotive language.

[HoreTore]

They were very clever 500 years ago, they made the best decisions based on the available evidence. The point is very imprtant, because in 500 years someone may try to call you a "ingored SoB". Take a moment to consider this.

An ignorant SoB? Of course I will be that, why on earth shouldn't I? Unless the world suddenly starts going backwards, people in the future will know a lot more than we do now, and yes, we'll be ignorant SoB's. And no, they weren't basing their decisions based on the best available evidence. They were disregarding a lot of proven science back then because of the ignorant to smart people ratio. But some people were fortunate enough to be able to utilize the discoveries science had given, and guess what? They fared a lot better.

Just like this kid would've survived easily if it wasn't for all the ignorant SoB's that killed her.

But I highly doubt that prayer will ever take the place of science. So I don't really see the relevance here. Sorry.


Maybe you don't have the concept of mens rea in Norway? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea Thankfully we have it in England and the US. Murder requires a very specific mens rea, unless you can demonstrate that it's just manslaughter.

Since when have I ever cared about silly law concepts? And bah, "manslaughter" is just another way of saying you killed someone, which was my point.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Since when have I ever cared about silly law concepts?

When the law concepts became an important part of the charges you want to lay, I presume.

[HoreTore]

When the law concepts became an important part of the charges you want to lay, I presume.

Bah.

My point is very simple; doctors work, praying don't. Children needs to be protected from parents who try to kill them, and when it happens, like in this case, it must be met with real consequences. Like 10 years in prison.

Like we do when you kill someone who isn't your child. That someone believes that you should get a lower sentence because it was your own child you killed is beyond me. Also, we're only having this discussion in the first place because we're talking about christians, not muslims/vegans/whatever, if it was muslims/vegans/whatever then you two would've already brought out the gallows.

[Beskar]

They should get done with charges of neglect and possible other things, but it isn't murder. They did try to heal their child afterall, however mis-informed it was.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Bah.

My point is very simple; doctors work, praying don't.

Children needs to be protected from parents who try to kill them, and when it happens, like in this case, it must be met with real consequences. Like 10 years in prison

Like we do when you kill someone who isn't your child. That someone believes that you should get a lower sentence because it was your own child you killed is beyond me.

The parents didn't try to kill them, hence the mens rea being important. This isn't the same as, say, an honour killing. Intent is important in a court of law.

These individuals were following principles which were theologically incorrect, as I believe has been stated already. It isn't that praying doesn't work, it's that God has already provided them with the tools for their child to be healthy and the parents chose to ignore them.


Also, we're only having this discussion in the first place because we're talking about christians, not muslims/vegans/whatever, if it was muslims/vegans/whatever then you two would've already brought out the gallows.

Nope.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

An ignorant SoB? Of course I will be that, why on earth shouldn't I? Unless the world suddenly starts going backwards, people in the future will know a lot more than we do now, and yes, we'll be ignorant SoB's. And no, they weren't basing their decisions based on the best available evidence. They were disregarding a lot of proven science back then because of the ignorant to smart people ratio. But some people were fortunate enough to be able to utilize the discoveries science had given, and guess what? They fared a lot better.

Next thing, you'll be telling me they thought the world was flat.


Since when have I ever cared about silly law concepts? And bah, "manslaughter" is just another way of saying you killed someone, which was my point.

Then you can't prosecute murder, can you?

[Viking]

They were very clever 500 years ago, they made the best decisions based on the available evidence. The point is very imprtant, because in 500 years someone may try to call you a "ingored SoB". Take a moment to consider this.

Aren't the people surviving diabetes good enough evidence? Are their survival a mere illusion?


Maybe you don't have the concept of mens rea in Norway? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea Thankfully we have it in England and the US. Murder requires a very specific mens rea, unless you can demonstrate that it's just manslaughter.

They must have known very well that there was a great possibility that a simple medical treatment was all that would've been needed to make their child healthy. This makes a mind as guilty and irresponsible as you can have it.

When you take completely unnecessary risks with other persons life, it is murder if they die. If they so desperatly needed to, they could have waited with applying their mumbo jumbo after a visit to the doctor, in case it turned out there was no simple cure.

[HoreTore]

They must have known very well that there was a great possibility that a simple medical treatment was all that would've been needed to make their child healthy. This makes a mind as guilty and irresponsible as you can have it.

When you take completely unnecessary risks with other persons life, it is murder if they die. If they so desperatly needed to, they could have waited with applying their mumbo jumbo after a visit to the doctor, in case it turned out there was no simple cure.

Indeed it is! If your actions can result in death, it's murder no matter if you intended it or not. For example, you might hit someone just to hit him, but if that person dies because of the punch(which is quite possible), then it's murder, because you must've known that was an extreme consequence of your action.

Same applies here. Murder.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Aren't the people surviving diabetes good enough evidence? Are their survival a mere illusion?

That's not the point, the point is intent.


They must have known very well that there was a great possibility that a simple medical treatment was all that would've been needed to make their child healthy. This makes a mind as guilty and irresponsible as you can have it.

When you take completely unnecessary risks with other persons life, it is murder if they die. If they so desperatly needed to, they could have waited with applying their mumbo jumbo after a visit to the doctor, in case it turned out there was no simple cure.


Indeed it is! If your actions can result in death, it's murder no matter if you intended it or not. For example, you might hit someone just to hit him, but if that person dies because of the punch(which is quite possible), then it's murder, because you must've known that was an extreme consequence of your action.

Same applies here. Murder.

Voluntary manslaughter at best, not murder. Murder requires the intent to kill. In English Law Lit., "the killing of another with malice of forethought".

Here there was no intent to kill, ergo no "murder". That doesn't mean there was no homicide.

[Beskar]

Pretty much what Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla says. It is manslaughter, not murder, as there is no intent to kill. They can however, have very similar punishments. Depending on circumstances.

[HoreTore]

That's not the point, the point is intent.

Voluntary manslaughter at best, not murder. Murder requires the intent to kill. In English Law Lit., "the killing of another with malice of forethought".

Here there was no intent to kill, ergo no "murder". That doesn't mean there was no homicide.

Who cares?

My point is jail time for the both of them, why on earth you think I care in the slightest about which law paragraph is used to convict them is quite frankly beyond my imagination.


Anyway, we Norwegians thankfully drew our bureaucratic ideals from the french, we have none of these silly english concepts, and here they would stand trial for murder, as explained earlier. Manslaughter is what we call it when someone is run over by a car, we call it murder when a punch goes wrong and results in death, a baby is shaken to death or when someone denies their child medical care.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Who cares?

My point is jail time for the both of them, why on earth you think I care in the slightest about which law paragraph is used to convict them is quite frankly beyond my imagination.

The sentencing options are different depending on the law paragraph, and it is necessary to use the proper section of the law to convict them. If you aren't proper in your application of the law it loses all respect in the eyes of the educated citizenry.



Anyway, we Norwegians thankfully drew our bureaucratic ideals from the french, we have none of these silly english concepts, and here they would stand trial for murder, as explained earlier. Manslaughter is what we call it when someone is run over by a car, we call it murder when a punch goes wrong and results in death, a baby is shaken to death or when someone denies their child medical care.

A punch going wrong and resulting in death could be considered second degree murder, depending on the specifics of the case.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Who cares?

My point is jail time for the both of them, why on earth you think I care in the slightest about which law paragraph is used to convict them is quite frankly beyond my imagination.

The punishement should fit the crime, the Law should be just. Two reasons why you should care.



Anyway, we Norwegians thankfully drew our bureaucratic ideals from the french, we have none of these silly english concepts, and here they would stand trial for murder, as explained earlier. Manslaughter is what we call it when someone is run over by a car, we call it murder when a punch goes wrong and results in death, a baby is shaken to death or when someone denies their child medical care.

Ironic, given that our Law draws heavily on Danish and Norwegian concepts.

[HoreTore]

The punishement should fit the crime, the Law should be just. Two reasons why you should care.

......And that's exactly why I object to 6 months of "jail" for killing your own daughter.

[Rhyfelwyr]

......And that's exactly why I object to 6 months of "jail" for killing your own daughter.

Since you believe doing time is all about rehabilitation, what do you propose for these parents that would actually make them healthy members of society?

[HoreTore]

Since you believe doing time is all about rehabilitation, what do you propose for these parents that would actually make them healthy members of society?

I'm all about rehabilitation, and I also have a deep hatred of locking people away.

Unfortunately, I'm also a big fan of "everyone being equal before the law". This case will be an exception, good for them, but bad for the rest of us. They should, of course, get the same punishment any other person gets for killing another human being in their state.

How high I want the sentence to be is really beyond the question.

Here (http://www.wsbtv.com/news/21598626/detail.html) is another example of child neglect, like that in this case. 15 years in prison, and they didn't even kill their child. Their fault was to get high on pills, not Jesus, as that gets you a free pass to whack your kids. Somebody should've told 'em....

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm all about rehabilitation, and I also have a deep hatred of locking people away.

Unfortunately, I'm also a big fan of "everyone being equal before the law". This case will be an exception, good for them, but bad for the rest of us. They should, of course, get the same punishment any other person gets for killing another human being in their state.

How high I want the sentence to be is really beyond the question.

Here (http://www.wsbtv.com/news/21598626/detail.html) is another example of child neglect, like that in this case. 15 years in prison, and they didn't even kill their child. Their fault was to get high on pills, not Jesus, as that gets you a free pass to whack your kids. Somebody should've told 'em....

There is a very different intent there, these parents were not "neglectful" in the same since. They believed they were doing the right thing, the best thing. Intent must be taken into account.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

......And that's exactly why I object to 6 months of "jail" for killing your own daughter.

No, because intent is important, hence the importance of the mens rea.

[HoreTore]

There is a very different intent there, these parents were not "neglectful" in the same since. They believed they were doing the right thing, the best thing. Intent must be taken into account.


No, because intent is important, hence the importance of the mens rea.

Intent would've made it worse, but this is still bad enough.

And yes they were neglectful in the same way. What the difference between food and medicine? What's the difference between being high on drugs and jesus?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Intent would've made it worse, but this is still bad enough.

And yes they were neglectful in the same way. What the difference between food and medicine? What's the difference between being high on drugs and jesus?

I dunno, what's the difference between being high on Jesus and being high on Socialism?

[jabarto]

They believed they were doing the right thing, the best thing.

How can you possibly substantiate that?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

How can you possibly substantiate that?

They believed God heals people, not medicine, so they prayed instead of going to a doctor.

Ergo, they tried to do the best thing. Prove otherwise, criminal cases presume innocence.

[jabarto]

They believed God heals people, not medicine, so they prayed instead of going to a doctor.

Ergo, they tried to do the best thing. Prove otherwise, criminal cases presume innocence.

Are you seriously arguing that these people were so isolated for their entire middle-aged lives that they couldn't have learned that even the most die-hard of fundmaentalists take their kids to the doctors?

I'm not saying intent doesn't matter. I'm saying that every life form, no matter how primitive, has an instinctual urge to ensure that its offspring don't die. These people ignored that and thus have no excuse.

[Cronos Impera]

If they ware underprivilaged because of theri revenue then I truely understand the parents (in a way). In Romania we too have an excellent medical system.
If you have to pay to heal your child most parents chose "alternatives" even if sometimes those alternatives are wrong.

Their loss is more painfull than any sentance.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Are you seriously arguing that these people were so isolated for their entire middle-aged lives that they couldn't have learned that even the most die-hard of fundmaentalists take their kids to the doctors?

I'm not saying intent doesn't matter. I'm saying that every life form, no matter how primitive, has an instinctual urge to ensure that its offspring don't die. These people ignored that and thus have no excuse.

You are still assuming that the parents believed that modern medicine was better than prayer. It seems they actually believed that modern medicine evidences a lack of faith in God, which might therefore endanger their own, or their daughter's souls.

[miotas]

The way I see it is that there are two possibilities:

1. They knew that modern medicine would probably heal their child but chose not to use it, in which case they are psychopaths and should be in gaol, or

2. They believed that prayer would treat their daughter's sickness better than modern medicine, in which case they are delusional and should be in a mental institution.

[HoreTore]

I dunno, what's the difference between being high on Jesus and being high on Socialism?

I'm Norwegian remember, that means I'm a social-democrat ~;)


You are still assuming that the parents believed that modern medicine was better than prayer. It seems they actually believed that modern medicine evidences a lack of faith in God, which might therefore endanger their own, or their daughter's souls.

Irrelevant. Let's say you have a serial killer who believes that he's saving his victims from going to hell(I'm sure there's been at least one). Does he get a free pass to kill people?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Irrelevant. Let's say you have a serial killer who believes that he's saving his victims from going to hell(I'm sure there's been at least one). Does he get a free pass to kill people?

He still intended to break the law. These parents didn't.

[jabarto]

If they ware underprivilaged because of theri revenue then I truely understand the parents (in a way). In Romania we too have an excellent medical system.
If you have to pay to heal your child most parents chose "alternatives" even if sometimes those alternatives are wrong.

Their loss is more painfull than any sentance.

You have a point, but that can only be take so far. Remember, the kid couldn't even SPEAK.

Also, Philipvs, I might have given the wrong imporession in my responses to you. I think you're one of the most reasoanble and knowedgeable psoters here, and I don't want to come off as being pissed at you for defending these people. I'm more pissed at the blatant religous favoritism the judge is showing here; if these people were *anything* other than devout Christians, they would have had the book thrown at them. But they prayed first (to the right deity) so I guess that makes it all okay in the eyes of the law. :juggle2:

[Viking]

You are still assuming that the parents believed that modern medicine was better than prayer. It seems they actually believed that modern medicine evidences a lack of faith in God, which might therefore endanger their own, or their daughter's souls.

They could instead have been eager on proving themselves and their beliefs; despite being fully aware of the risk they were potentially taking.

[HoreTore]

He still intended to break the law. These parents didn't.

Uhm, no? Because "denying a dying person medical care" sure sounds illegal to me....

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm Norwegian remember, that means I'm a social-democrat ~;)

You Norwegians have a thing about religion, the reaction can be quite violent, is there a reason for that? Something historical?


Irrelevant. Let's say you have a serial killer who believes that he's saving his victims from going to hell(I'm sure there's been at least one). Does he get a free pass to kill people?


Also, Philipvs, I might have given the wrong imporession in my responses to you. I think you're one of the most reasoanble and knowedgeable psoters here, and I don't want to come off as being pissed at you for defending these people. I'm more pissed at the blatant religous favoritism the judge is showing here; if these people were *anything* other than devout Christians, they would have had the book thrown at them. But they prayed first (to the right deity) so I guess that makes it all okay in the eyes of the law. :juggle2:

Both excellent questions. The point is this, gaol should only be a punishment when the convicted is both a danger to society and unrepentant.

So, both these parents and a Jihadist militant should remain in gaol only so long as it takes to convince them their beliefs were mistaken.

[Ice]

Uhm, no? Because "denying a dying person medical care" sure sounds illegal to me....

How does that prove they intended to kill their daughter?