28
   

Religious Nuts Kill Own Daughter—Is Their Sentence Appropriate?

 
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2009 02:31 pm
@mismi,
mismi wrote:

I am not saying they don't. I am saying I agree with Green Witch that these people are ignorant. By sentencing them to work in hospitals where they can see children being cared for and cured by the doctors they will see a more sound faith being practised. They did not willfully kill that child. I would hope that they could see how useless a faith that does not take into account God-given (in my opinion - maybe not yours, but that's okay) abilities to heal diseases. This would allow them to care for the children that they still have better, without them having to be taken away.

I would think they would be willing to serve whatever sentence - but never discount selfishness - even in the most devout believer.

I would think that in any unfounded and unwise practice especially regarding children that the end outcome would be wiser parents that learned tragically in some cases that this is not the best way to care for their children. I would hope that the children could stay with their parents...I guess the problem is whether the parents are hard headed enough that they still believe strongly in keeping to their original belief. In that case, it is risky to leave a child with the parent . I would say it is better safe than sorry and that taking the children away would be the wisest move.

As far as punishment is concerned, I thought most people felt that reforming people was the end outcome. In that case it makes better sense to me to put the parents somewhere they would be actually learning.

Of course the main concern here would be for the other children. It's just a sad situation all around.

I only disagree with one aspect of what you said. It seems unthinkable to me that someone could negligently allow their child to die in steps right under their nose, having the power at any moment to stop it, and not face some actual punishment. To my way of thinking, in addition to being ignorant behavior, it is actually criminally negligent behavior. You seem almost to be denying the existence of criminality in the world.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2009 02:37 pm
@ebrown p,
Quote:
It think you are missing the point Setanta.

I also condemn all of these cases. There is no bigotry if they are all treated the same. If one case is punished more harshly than another because of the religion involved, that is where the bigotry comes in.


I think you are missing the point. These clowns are getting off with a judicial slap on the wrist, and yet you are still whining that they are somehow the victims of religious persecution. The guy whose daughter flew through the windshield to her death got years in the pen. The vegan couple lost custody of their children. Their sentence was reduced to time served, but that was over a year and half by the time they were sentenced. These clowns get six months, spread out over six years.

Given that you acknowledge that the legal system operates on a principle which excludes religiously-based prejudice in sentencing, i don't know what the hell you're whining about.
kickycan
 
  3  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2009 02:38 pm
@ebrown p,
ebrown p wrote:

Quote:

In fact, I think it's reverse religious bigotry that allows these people to get the ridiculous sentence they got. Do you believe that if they'd been drunks in my scenario they would have gotten a 1-month per year jail sentence?


Sure.

There are plenty of cases of negligent homicide due to intoxication that have lead to suspended sentences. The only difference is that you don't start threads about them.



In other words, if someone notices things regarding religious negligence, and points them out, they are required to point out another case of negligence that isn't religious in nature, or be branded a religious bigot. Wow, that's quite a nice strawman you've created for yourself.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2009 02:40 pm
@Setanta,
From the BBC
Quote:
Jay Kronenwetter, Mr Neumann's lawyer, was asked in a BBC interview if he thought his client had got off lightly.

"My client sees spiritual treatment as the proper medicine and I suspect the people who want harsher punishment see Western medicine as the proper medicine, I guess therein lies the difference," he told the BBC World Service.

"My clients just happen to have a belief that is very outside of our social norm."

The couple are appealing against their convictions.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2009 02:41 pm
@Setanta,
It seems to me that he's pissed, that people get pissed when reading about religious-based idiocy, and then proceed to comment on it. The actual details of the case seem to be secondary to the notion that we are somehow Zealous Bigots against the religious, for suggesting that people who do idiotic actions in the name of religion ought to be treated just as harshly as anyone else.

Cycloptichorn
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2009 02:46 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Word up, Home Slice . . .

(I'm sure the argot is hopelessly out of date, but you know what i mean.)
mismi
 
  4  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2009 02:46 pm
@Brandon9000,
No, not denying...I guess it is hard for me to believe that in this case they were actually trying to kill their child, apparently they were feeding clothing, loving that child within their own belief of caring. Apparently, they had a false belief that prayer would heal the child. Yes, this is a form of negligence. But it is not because they were trying to kill the child.

Their belief in prayer alone to heal her from the disease led them to believe they were doing what is best for the child. This is ignorance. It can be corrected. It is a horrible reality that this child was killed in this manner. But it was not because the parents were not feeding her, or caring for her needs in the best way they knew how. At least that is what I gleaned from my reading. I would like to believe the best in people though.

Still in all, there are consequences to every action and they deserve to bear the burden of those consequences which are the death of a child and whatever sentence the court deems appropriate. I have to say I lean toward taking the other children away until they know for sure that the ignorance has been corrected. But that gets into a web of confused and blurred lines I am not willing to trod through.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2009 02:59 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Word up, Home Slice . . .

(I'm sure the argot is hopelessly out of date, but you know what i mean.)


That's actually not bad at all.

Urk! Except, the reality is probably that I am out of date as well! Confused

I cannot wait to start embarrassing my kids by attempting to use their lingo. It's probably the primary reason I'm looking to have kids.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  3  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2009 03:20 pm
Setanta wrote:
I think you are missing the point. These clowns are getting off with a judicial slap on the wrist, and yet you are still whining that they are somehow the victims of religious persecution.


You are changing his point. He wasn't arguing that the sentencing was religiously motivated, but the arguments here that were hyperbolic and religiously motivated. And by the admission of the people making them, they were.

Cycloptichorn wrote:
The actual details of the case seem to be secondary to the notion that we are somehow Zealous Bigots against the religious, for suggesting that people who do idiotic actions in the name of religion ought to be treated just as harshly as anyone else.


So everyone else gets the chair or the firing squad? This too is moving the goalposts. What ebrown started criticizing was not calls for them to be treated as harshly as anyone else. By all means, treat them like anyone else. But equating negligent homicide to murder is not how everyone else is sentenced. And without the religious component there is, indeed, less of the outrage.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2009 03:27 pm
@Robert Gentel,
I'm not interested in splitting hairs over homicide v. murder.

I think the negative reaction to Ebrown mostly comes from this line:

Quote:
The idea that they "killed their daughter" is over-the-top ridiculous. The girl died of a deadly disease. Not too long ago, everyone who had this disease died.


Yeah. This is pure, 100% bullshit. They did kill their daughter by refusing to take the common and well-known actions to treat her disease. She didn't die of a 'deadly disease,' she died of negligence. Her parent's negligence. The fact that they are religious idiots has no bearing on the case at all.

Imagine a set of parents who believed that God would provide all the nourishment the kid needs, and refused to feed a child. The child starves to death. Would it be acceptable to state that 'the parents didn't kill the kid, Hunger did?' Hell no. Nobody who puts even an ounce of logical thought into the situation would agree with that.

It certainly isn't 'over-the-top ridiculous' to say that they killed their daughter, no matter what definition you want to use.

Cycloptichorn
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2009 03:27 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:
You are changing his point. He wasn't arguing that the sentencing was religiously motivated, but the arguments here that were hyperbolic and religiously motivated. And by the admission of the people making them, they were.


Nonsense. Now you're making **** up. This is what he wrote, and to which i responded:

ebrownp wrote:
It think you are missing the point Setanta.

I also condemn all of these cases. There is no bigotry if they are all treated the same. If one case is punished more harshly than another because of the religion involved, that is where the bigotry comes in.


He does not mention the people responding in this thread at all. If you wish to argue with me about what i've posted, then argue on the basis of the context, not something you've made up to make you appear authoritative and wise.
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2009 03:30 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:

He does not mention the people responding in this thread at all. If you wish to argue with me about what i've posted, then argue on the basis of the context, not something you've made up to make you appear authoritative and wise.


And here I thought I was the only one who noticed a tendency on his part to do that.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  2  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2009 03:40 pm
@Setanta,
You misunderstood. Robert is exactly right about my argument.

Quote:

I also condemn all of these cases. There is no bigotry if they are all treated the same. If one case is punished more harshly than another because of the religion involved, that is where the bigotry comes in.


The point is fairness.

The quote above is in response to what people here have said (advocating harsh punishment). My reaction is to the people, such as yourself, who seem to be saying that the religion matters rather than the fact this was a case of negligent homicide. I have made it clear several times that I agree that the act was criminal and I am not against punishment.

I have also pointed that negligent homicide often results in a suspended sentence.

Robert wrote:
He wasn't arguing that the sentencing was religiously motivated, but the arguments here that were hyperbolic and religiously motivated. And by the admission of the people making them, they were.


Robert is spot on.
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2009 03:50 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
He does not mention the people responding in this thread at all. If you wish to argue with me about what i've posted, then argue on the basis of the context, not something you've made up to make you appear authoritative and wise.


I'm not making it up, and with basic reading comprehension it should be pretty clear that what he's arguing against in this thread are the reactions within the thread and the punishments called for in this thread. He's simply not arguing that the punishment was religious persecution.

In this thread people called for absurd punishments, perhaps in jest, or in hyperbole but those were clearly what he's objecting to. Not the sentence these people actually did receive.

And can't you disagree without being a prick about it? Are you rude to others in order to sound authoritative and wise?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2009 03:51 pm
@mismi,
Quote:
I guess it is hard for me to believe that in this case they were actually trying to kill their child, apparently they were feeding clothing, loving that child within their own belief of caring.
This is the focus of their "intent". I cannot believe in my godless conscience that anyone would deny that medical treatment would offer a positive demonstratable effect on the outcome of the girls illness, while the "spiritual" treatment has a really bad track record. THAT to me, is depraved indifference , The parents did not seem to care beyond the point that they could gain comfort for themselves (screw the daughter) by employing a methodology that has seldom (if ever) shown to be effective in treating what is an acute disease if left untreated.

THEY KNEW THAT. So, no matter what their religion preached about faith healing, they knew that their daughters life was in jeopardy and they had her life in their hands.

Withholding medicine on a "loved one" in order to expedite collecting an insurance policy is not unlike the predictable outcome this specific case.

Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2009 03:53 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I'm not interested in splitting hairs over homicide v. murder.


They are important distinctions in an argument about a legal case and its sentence.

Quote:
Yeah. This is pure, 100% bullshit. They did kill their daughter by refusing to take the common and well-known actions to treat her disease. She didn't die of a 'deadly disease,' she died of negligence. Her parent's negligence. The fact that they are religious idiots has no bearing on the case at all.


Bill said he sees little difference between this negligence and someone who actually does drown their kids in a bathtub, and that kind of position makes this distinction important.

Quote:
It certainly isn't 'over-the-top ridiculous' to say that they killed their daughter, no matter what definition you want to use.


I don't think it's ridiculous, myself, as a turn of phrase. But it fails to make an important distinction in the murder/homicide debate. I don't have a problem saying that the parents killed their child through neglect colloquially, but others here have gone on to use specific legal terms and gone on to make specific comparisons of this neglect to actual murder with intent. That is taking it a bit far.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2009 03:56 pm
@ebrown p,
How can you consider this:

Quote:
The idea that they "killed their daughter" is over-the-top ridiculous. The girl died of a deadly disease. Not too long ago, everyone who had this disease died.


To be anything but an attempt to defend and apologize for the people involved? It's pure bullshit.

I don't even think it's correct to call this Negligent homicide. They knew exactly what was going to happen, as FM said, and let it happen. It wasn't a mistake; it wasn't negligence on their part. It was intentional. They intentionally let their kid die, because of their whacked-out religious beliefs.

Cycloptichorn
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2009 03:59 pm
@kickycan,
kickycan wrote:
In fact, I think it's reverse religious bigotry that allows these people to get the ridiculous sentence they got.


This is an interesting point, I do agree that this kind of thing is more tolerated with a religious angle. It's a complicated issue if you support freedom of religion though, and the right to indoctrinate your kid with the underlying beliefs that lead to these scenarios.

Quote:
Do you believe that if they'd been drunks in my scenario they would have gotten a 1-month per year jail sentence?


I suspect the main reason their sentence is structured this way is due to the concerns for the welfare of their children, not because of their religion.
0 Replies
 
mismi
 
  2  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2009 04:02 pm
@farmerman,
Maybe so, I would hope that is not what they are doing. But whether it is or not - they still deserve the consequences of their action...and that means the loss of their daughter and whatever the court deems appropriate.

Whether this is religious based or not is not the issue for me. My stance is if it is ignorance based, then the people should be educated and monitored before being allowed to have custody of the other children. I do think that if they were not being intentionally neglectful, that the better sentence would be to educate, monitor and require duty somewhere where the education could take place. Of course...this means you have to be able to know what their intentions are - which is hard to do - I admit. So in that case...punishment in the form of jail and whatever sentence is given is a must. They should not be given a pass.

You seem to think they knew and intentionally with held care from their daughter. That is indeed heinous and should be tried criminally. I did not see that.

I felt the same way when it came to the parents that only fed their baby a vegan diet. Correct the ignorance, monitor the situation and give the baby the best place to grow up. I would hope that would be with parents that have a better understanding of how best to care for their child and not in a system already over-run with foster children.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2009 04:02 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I don't see it as an attempt to apologize for those involved, I see it as an over-the-top argument (on ebrown's part) myself. But he's made perfectly clear that he isn't defending their actions repeatedly.

Quote:
I don't even think it's correct to call this Negligent homicide. They knew exactly what was going to happen, as FM said, and let it happen. It wasn't a mistake; it wasn't negligence on their part. It was intentional. They intentionally let their kid die, because of their whacked-out religious beliefs.


That isn't something I think either of us can say. They made comments about it being God's will but that might not mean that they expected that to happen.

If they really wanted the child to die I doubt an ambulance would have been called when it was too late, but still I can't speak for their intent. I can, however, point out that they are being charged with negligent homicide and not murder.
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.79 seconds on 05/11/2021 at 06:09:02