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

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Who cares what they said 500 years ago? People were ignored SoB's back then, who gives a 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.