23
   

Yet another case of religious murder

 
 
dagmaraka
 
  2  
Reply Tue 26 May, 2009 12:07 pm
@farmerman,
but you are assuming what the mother or whoever was responsible - perhaps more people -- were thinking and believing. were they selfish and thinking of their own "points to paradise?" were they selfless and praying for the child believing that will do the trick (whatever you or i think of set aside for the moment)? criminally stupid, negligent, ridiculous.... i'll sign under all of those. but intend or motivation - that is just a speculation on our part.

edit: "knowledge of a probable outcome" in this case might also mean "if i pray, my child will be saved. but that, too, is a specualation.
aperson
 
  0  
Reply Wed 27 May, 2009 05:07 am
Goddamn it... Usually I try not criticize religion on an emotional basis, but this crosses the line. At the moment I am just feeling pure hatred towards these ignorant, stubborn, moronic fucks who would let a little girl, with her whole life ahead of her, DIE because you are too fucked-up in the head to call a ******* ambulance.

I don't care what anyone says. THIS IS MURDER.
aperson
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 May, 2009 05:22 am
@aperson,
Woops, switched persons there...
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 May, 2009 05:24 am
@dagmaraka,
I disagree and I wish we could get a lawyer to post about this. Many of cases Ive worked on (forensics) have been based upon '"A reasonable person should have known". That was the standard of proof.

If all the medical facts show that diabetes can be managed as a chronic illness

If the general public is aware of that fact

If the popular press published stories or articles about managing diabetes as a chronic condition

If medical advice says that also

THEN the reasonable person should have known and acting contrary to that information is considered depraved indifference and is available for a murder 3 (maybe 2) charge.
My point then was that probably the prosecutor chose the level of charge to assure a conviction.

In reality it becomes semantics, you and E just hold too much in the value of the word "murder". WHen you look at some legal results, the word is used in many situations other than premiditeated or involuntary (act of passion).

See, I feel that, with depraved indifference, this killing of the young girl is even more reprehensible than (to me) a murder of passion where , say the mother went totally postal ,Cause the kid was using wire hangers. And beat her and the kid died. Thats murder, why not depraved indifference??

Im prwching as a futurist The Charges should be brought as soon as we stop this insane "free pass" attitude towards many of these irresponsible religions..
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 May, 2009 06:59 am
@farmerman,
I'm amazed that people want to second guess the prosecutor after reading a single article, and armed with five facts about an (undoubtedly complex) homicide case.

The author cherry-picked the stuff that's sensational, and has gotten your drawers torsioned.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  3  
Reply Wed 27 May, 2009 08:59 am
@farmerman,
Unlike those who find this very straightforward, I'm pretty conflicted on the appropriate punishment. Clearly these parents did wrong and that wrong resulted in the death of a child, but I don't think murder 2 is appropriate.

If someone is a danger to themselves, we can lock them up for their own safety. If they are a danger to their children, we can take their children away to protect the children. If someone who is mentally incompetent commits a crime, the law recognizes that they should not be held fully accountable for their actions though action must be taken to protect society. I read somewhere that post-partum depression fell into this category in England in the past, though I don't remember if that is true today. So, are these people so mentally deluded that we should also take that into account? I certainly believe they did not have intent to kill. I think the other factor is that I believe that despite their religious beliefs, these parents loved their child and have to live with the fact that they killed her through their direct actions/ failure to act. Murder 2 just seems like piling on and does not serve society or the criminal. I'm ok with the verdict as passed.
najmelliw
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 May, 2009 12:29 pm
I guess the best way to combat this type of negligence judiciously is to hold the church these people are member of in part responsible for the behavior of their followers, and make it their duty to inform proper instances if they believe that a childs life is endangered due to opinions and beliefs of the parents. Perhaps a significant fine would be stimulans enough to actually make church authorities (as possibly the only authoroties these type of parents accept in the first place_) take appropriate action.

At the very least, any other children these folks have should be placed with other families, since it's quite clear they are incapable of making decisions that are in the best interest of their children.

In fact, and I'm sure I'll get flak for this, given the tone of some of the people here, I doubt that the people in question care much about the penalty they receive. If they are convinced they did the right thing (and that their child is now in heaven), they expect to see her again someday soon. For them, this life is far more transient and meaningless then for those who don't believe.

So any corporal punishment, even hanging them or giving them lethal injection, should in their eyes only make them martyrs for the cause, and it won't solve the problem in the future.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 12:09 am
@engineer,
Quote:
I certainly believe they did not have intent to kill. I think the other factor is that I believe that despite their religious beliefs, these parents loved their child and have to live with the fact that they killed her through their direct actions/ failure to act. Murder 2 just seems like piling on and does not serve society or the criminal. I'm ok with the verdict as passed.


The gravity of the charge is one which recognizes the contractual RESPONSIBILTY to the nurturing of ones child (Under severe penalty of the law). If parents can, with relative impunity(or b ehind a wall of "religious free expression"), carry on such irresponsible tamperings with their kids life and well being, then they should be faced with the severest of charges if they continue their recklessness.
To me its a simple matter of the value of our constitution as a guidebook and a reminder of a citizens(and a governments) responsibilities.

I think the establishment and free expression clauses have only been used as tests in a (still) incomplete list of possible legal scenarios. I hope that there will be a case that, during , perhaps, an appeal of a verdict as this one, the USSC starts the process in which crimes against a childs civil rights arent viewed in a fashion that I presently consider cavellier.
0 Replies
 
g7yarbro
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Aug, 2009 10:57 pm
@dagmaraka,
My opinion is that we as a society has to determine at what point is it religious freedom or endagerment. There is a church close to my house that handles snakes (rattle snakes). I don't know if they let children handle them or not. But if this is not Darwin at his best thinning out the stupid I don't know what is. But to do that to an innocent child is the same to me as not feeding or making them sleep otut in the cold.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Wed 26 Aug, 2009 10:37 am
@Wilso,
And I'm saying that I don't give a flying **** what the law says. Those worthless scum murdered that little girl. It's no different than if they'd placed her on an altar and cut her heart out.
-----------------------------------------------------
AGREE
0 Replies
 
WendyLou
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2011 01:38 am
@Wilso,
When I was a lot younger, I lived next door to a family of Seventh Day Adventists. Their family member was in need of a blood transfusion, just a simple needle in the arm in hospital for half a day (say) and home again, happy and healthy. They didn't do so and I paced up and down knowing that someone was dying next door and there was absolutely nothing I could do about it.
Same applies to the person who needed insulin. What is the matter with people today. Let's say that any God who created us and gave us a free will, also gave us the ability to be doctors, nurses, scientists, biologists, etc. therefore surely the right to save a life.
0 Replies
 
surovi
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jan, 2012 11:46 pm
murder is n't a great part so , remove it
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/17/2024 at 11:31:31