Religious Nuts Kill Own Daughter—Is Their Sentence Appropriate?

@farmerman,

Quote:

kill one kid, thats ok then. I see.

what... are you jealous?

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

i'm jealous

i'd like to get my freebie kill

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

This is such horseshit, and i suspect it is the product of your blindly fanatical support of any kind of religious insanity simply on the grounds that it is religiously derived. Many, many child care workers (and i've known and worked with quite a few) complain about the ethic which assumes keeping children in their "family" is best, and deplore the automatic assumption and assignment of children to parents or relations, absent proof of an immediate danger of abuse.

How do you know these children are not endangered? Children attend schools, visit malls and show up at a host of venues in which they can be exposed to virulent diseases, especially when the venue attracts many children. The thing that killed so many millions in the Spanish influenza epidemic of 1918-19 was pneumonia, after the influenza had weakened their resistance and inflamed their lungs. Influenza could carry off any of their children if their parents' superstitious idiocy would lead them to deny reasonable treatments for pneumonia. It only takes days, not months, for pneumonia to kill.

The only basis i see here for your continued defense of these murderously insane, superstitious, bat-**** crazy people is that you want to believe that all religious fanaticism is defensible. Tommyrot.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

you forgot - ebp's all about the parents are always right <shrug>

we all have our sticking points

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

...These children are not endangered. Not only is it a statistical improbability that this situation will happen again, the requirement that their kids are checked by medical professionals every few months address any further risk.

This addresses the issue and avoids ripping the children out of their family.

I'm not sure what's wrong with ripping children out of a bad, dangerous family that has already gotten one child killed. Although it may be unlikely that remaining children will contract a fatal disease before they're 18, they may contract diseases that will be very troublesome without medical care or medicine.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

Quote:

These children are not endangered.

Ridiculous, their parents are quite obviously incompetent idiots. The fact that their idiocy is religious in nature is immaterial.

Quote:

Not only is it a statistical improbability that this situation will happen again, the requirement that their kids are checked by medical professionals every few months address any further risk.

No, it doesn't. Getting checked out every few months wouldn't have saved the first kid, because she died at home over the course of four days.

Quote:

This addresses the issue and avoids ripping the children out of their family.

Getting kids away from those religious wackjobs is probably the best thing that could be done for them.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

The bad part is that it's very rough on the kids to do that and they would invariably suffer. If the kids were taken away there is ample justification for it. But I also understand not doing so and mandating observation instead. The risks they face with their parents are likely not very substantial.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Getting kids away from those religious wackjobs is probably the best thing that could be done for them.

What makes you so sure? I've seen this happen more than a few times, it was incredibly difficult for the kids. In some cases the trauma of removal far outweighs the risks the parents pose.

It's much easier to be absolute about this as an armchair quarterback with no vested interest. Social workers and judges thankfully will often be much more thoughtful about it.

2 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

It's much easier to be absolute about this as an armchair quarterback with no vested interest. Social workers and judges thankfully will often be much more thoughtful about it.

You are assuming the judges and workers will see it your way. That I strongly doubt on a case by case basis.

Doing no harm to the kids does not mean keeping the family together automatically, especially when theres a previous behavior issue that involves kids safety.

2 Replies

Quote:

These children are not endangered. Not only is it a statistical improbability that this situation will happen again....

Quote:

Asser studied the deaths of youngsters in an obscure religious congregation. In 1998, 78 graves of children buried since 1955 were discovered in a cemetery of the Followers of Christ Church in the suburbs of Oregon City. The finding sparked widespread publicity about poor record keeping and inadequate investigations.

Last fall Asser flew to Oregon to examine public records for information about cause of death. He tramped through mud to record data on the children buried in the Followers of Christ cemetery. Asser combed through the group’s telephone directory and counted the people coming to a service at the Followers church, as he stood on the sidewalk receiving their hostile glares.

These methods allowed Asser to compare the proportion of child deaths for the group with statewide numbers. Children born into the Followers of Christ Church were 4.5 times more likely to die compared to peers in the surrounding population, he found.

“Once again many of the deaths were from conditions easily prevented or treatable,” Asser said. After the deaths were publicized, Oregon repealed laws giving religious exemptions to charges of child abuse, neglect, manslaughter, criminal mistreatment, and criminal nonsupport.

http://www.brown.edu/Administration/George_Street_Journal/vol26/26GSJ24g.html

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Getting kids away from those religious wackjobs is probably the best thing that could be done for them.

What makes you so sure? I've seen this happen more than a few times, it was incredibly difficult for the kids.

It's incredibly difficult when the homes of abusers of any type are broken up. That doesn't stop it from happening all the time, when the state determines it is necessary.

Quote:

In some cases the trauma of removal far outweighs the risks the parents pose.

It's much easier to be absolute about this as an armchair quarterback with no vested interest. Social workers and judges thankfully will often be much more thoughtful about it.

Well, I'm sure you know that I would be more thoughtful about it as well, if I was tasked with making the final decision. But I am strongly inclined to think that this behavior is very, very damaging to a child and I do not believe the parents would act differently if another of their kids fell sick; they would sit there and watch that kid die too. That's not acceptable to me.

Cycloptichron

0 Replies

@kickycan,

Quote:

An American couple in Wisconsin who prayed rather than seeking medical care for their 11-year-old dying daughter were sentenced to six months in jail and 10 years' probation for second-degree homicide.

If one of their other children were to become sick with a treatable illness could they be forced to take him or her to the doctor for medical treatment?

If so, I think the ten years probation would cover any other situation such as this that might arise with their other children, as the eleven year old was their youngest child (it stated elsewhere in the article).

Quote:

Dale and Leilani Neumann could have received up to 25 years in prison over the March 2008 death of Madeline Neumann, who died of an undiagnosed but treatable form of diabetes.

I think it's a salient point that the diabetes was undiagnosed and they only found the diabetes at autopsy. Many people are often confused about the symptoms of type 1 or juvenile diabetes because they're fairly amorphous and a child often doesn't report exactly how they're feeling accurately enough for the parent to put two and two together.
In another post, someone said she was in obvious trouble and lay dying for four days...I didn't read that here, but that being said - I'd have certainly taken my own children to the doctor if they were weak and listless to the point of lying on the floor in such a manner - but I don't think the facts presented here depict these people as being intentionally negligent as the most important aspect of the case (the diabetes) was unknown to them.
Maybe this is what the judge was taking into consideration when he sentenced them and decided not to remove the other children, but built in a safeguard with the probation to ensure this wouldn't happen again, and save them (the other children) from any more trauma or disruption in their lives.

1 Reply

@aidan,

I don't understand what the 'safeguard' is that would keep this from happening again.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Doing no harm to the kids does not mean keeping the family together automatically, especially when theres a previous behavior issue that involves kids safety.

But "doing no harm" isn't the standard, here. It's managing the risk of harm, which is much more difficult.

Taking the children away is guaranteed to cause psychological harm. These kids would likely live in foster care for the rest of their childhood, and it is unlikely that they'd remain together.

Leaving the kids with the parents might cause physical harm, and might cause psychological harm.

Presumably, the court has more information than we do.

2 Replies

very interesting thread, it points out many of the most difficult issues faced by child protection workers on a daily basis.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

You are assuming the judges and workers will see it your way. That I strongly doubt on a case by case basis.

No I am not. And I don't think you even understand how I see it. You guys seem to just think that anyone who isn't on board with your absolutism is defending the parents or minimizing what they did. That's just not true.

Quote:

Doing no harm to the kids does not mean keeping the family together automatically, especially when theres a previous behavior issue that involves kids safety.

Nowhere did I say that the best situation is for the family to be kept intact. What is with you guys? Why is everything black or white to you?

My point is that for Cyclo to be pronouncing that taking the kids away is the best thing that can happen to them is a profound lack of understanding of the complexities of doing so. This isn't the type of thing that justifies such certainty on the matter.

If they aren't being abused or neglected in other ways, the risks the parents pose to them may just not justify this. It's something very important to consider and I've made no claim on the matter either way myself, I don't envy those who have to make this decision. I am just arguing against the feckless proclamations by the Monday morning quarterbacks. Breaking up families is something that I think requires a lot less self-certainty and I'm glad that the people who actually do this are typically not prone to such facile proclamations.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

very true. Im ghasted about what aidan said that the diabetes wasnt discovered till autopsy. I have to doubt that unless a simple blood test was denied her.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

Quote:

managing the risk of harm,

That also doesnt mean that the kids stay with parents whove shown previous negative behaviors.

The "psychological" harm may be a mere chestnut and is just as probable or improbable as is keeping the kids with the parents whove already shown that they cant fully protect their kids in times of illness.

1 Reply

@boomerang,

The methodology used to determine that the children were 4.5 times more likely to die is pretty shaky. Namely that he has more accurate death records (the deaths must be recorded) than membership records (standing outside a church and trying to count the membership) and under reporting the membership would lead to an inflated death rate.

But assuming he's right, those statistics simply can't be applied to some other random family with similar beliefs, whose children are already past infancy.

Disclaimer: again, just because I don't agree with this extrapolation doesn't mean I support religious lunacy yadayadayada.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

The "psychological" harm may be a mere chestnut....

I'm not sure why you put psychological in quotes. Do you discount the possibility of psychological harm?

0 Replies

Religious Nuts Kill Own Daughter—Is Their Sentence Appropriate?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know