Religious Nuts Kill Own Daughter—Is Their Sentence Appropriate?

Quote:

Do you make a distinction between religious idiocy and non-religious idiocy?

I certainly do. Religious idiocy is the absolute, bar-none worst form of idiocy, because it is impervious to logic or attempts to argue people around. Absolutely impervious to it. It also inspires Zeal to a greater degree than almost any other human idea.

This creates very dangerous situations for the rest of us, while providing very little benefit. So yeah - I personally look down on religious idiots more than regular idiots.

Cycloptichorn

On the other hand, if you clip somebody with your car while drunk in Wisconsin, even if it’s your first offense, you’re facing up to 25 years. Are these morons less guilty than the fella who has a genuine accident on his way home from the bar? What these people did was no accident, and they knew the stakes. They had considerably more opportunity to consider the consequences and never relented until after the child was dead. Religious, or not, these people had ample opportunity to consider the consequences of their actions (lack thereof), and chose to behave in a fashion that resulted in the death of a child.

JUNEAU [Wisconsin] - Kurt K. Kaiser, 53, of Horicon, whose family describes him as a quiet, hard-working man and occasional drinker, was sentenced Tuesday to 12 months in jail and 15 years of probation for homicide by intoxicated use of a vehicle in the death of his 47-year-old wife Karen Kaiser.

Kaiser pleaded no contest to the felony charge in November and faced a maximum 40-year sentence during Tuesday's proceedings. However, Dodge County Circuit Judge John Storck withheld sentencing in the case and ordered probation and conditional jail time.

According to reports, the Kaisers were on their way home from a family Christmas party when a 1997 Mercury driven by Kurt Kaiser slid through the T intersection of Highway E and Highway S, vaulted 55 feet through the air and hit a tree in the town of Hubbard. The Dodge County Medical Examiner's office pronnounced Karen Kaiser dead on the scene. Kurt Kaiser, who had a blood alcohol concentration of .16 percent at the time of the crash, told police he hadn't seen the stop sign.

"I don't know if there are any words to express the feelings of hurt I have inside myself every moment of every day," Kaiser said Tuesday. "I would do anything right now to bring her back. I know it can't happen, but I wish it could."

Twelve of Kaiser's family members were in attendance for Tuesday's proceedings. Karen Kaiser's sister Brenda Reinhardt told the court she thought weather played an important factor in the crash, adding, "I feel Kurt should not go to prison."

Storck said he received letters from all five of Karen Kaiser's siblings in support of Kurt Kaiser, and noted that is, "very unusual when a member of a family is killed .... The victims in this case think of Mr. Kaiser as a good person."

Kaiser doesn't have a criminal history, but he does have past driving-related issues. In 1980 he pulled out in front of a semi trailer and a female passenger in his car was killed in the crash. In 1981 he led police on a long chase in an attempt to elude them, and in 1991 he was convicted of drunken driving, according to court records.

You know, Miss Wabbit, you and Robert repeating that canard about intent to kill as the distinguishing characteristic of murder doesn't make it so. In many of the States of the United States, and in Canada, an intent to do grievous bodily harm which happens to result in death is considered murder, too. But more than that, in the great majority of States of the United States, so is an act so inherently dangerous that any reasonable person would realize the likelihood of fatality--which could be argued was the case in this matter.

You know, Miss Wabbit, you and Robert repeating that canard about intent to kill as the distinguishing characteristic of murder doesn't make it so. In many of the States of the United States, and in Canada, an intent to do grievous bodily harm which happens to result in death is considered murder, too. But more than that, in the great majority of States of the United States, so is an act so inherently dangerous that any reasonable person would realize the likelihood of fatality--which could be argued was the case in this matter.

This guy (ironically from Wisconsin) got 12 months out of a possible 40 years. Note that he had a previous drunk driving conviction (and plenty of time to think about it).

That's another fine example of excessively lenient sentencing... so? I don’t see your point in posting that.

On the other hand, if you clip somebody with your car while drunk in Wisconsin, even if it’s your first offense, you’re facing up to 25 years. Are these morons less guilty than the fella who has a genuine accident on his way home from the bar?

Freedom of religion in no way trumps inalienable rights, like the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These people killed a child and the excessively lenient sentence can only serve to encourage others to follow the same demented path. In my opinion, this is no more a freedom of religion issue than honor-killing.

You know, Miss Wabbit, you and Robert repeating that canard about intent to kill as the distinguishing characteristic of murder doesn't make it so. In many of the States of the United States, and in Canada, an intent to do grievous bodily harm which happens to result in death is considered murder, too.

But more than that, in the great majority of States of the United States, so is an act so inherently dangerous that any reasonable person would realize the likelihood of fatality--which could be argued was the case in this matter.

Do you have the same vitriol for parents who don't make their kids wear seat belts, or parents who don't lock their gun cabinet?