Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Faith healers acquitted of manslaughter in the death of their two year old

1235»

Posts

  • YannYann Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Instead of paying my bills in the future, I'm just going to pray to god to pay them for me. Faith based bill paying. As long as I believe in it I'm not liable!

  • DealwithitDealwithit Registered User
    edited August 2009
    It's unfortunate that life sometimes imitates art or vice versa. This story reminds me of an episode of Babylon 5 called "Believers".

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Believers_(Babylon_5)
    Spoiler:

    It's ironic, because the idea of this episode had its basis from a real life story that happened before 1994. This is just tangential to the debate. I don't think it will be last time we hear of similar stories in the future.

  • lazegamerlazegamer Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Ego wrote: »
    Then I started looking up faith healer websites, and started thinking about how there's a relationship between the crazy shit you believe and the number of exclamation marks you use (seriously.)

    Pratchett's theory: a person's sanity is inversely proportional to the number of exclamation marks they use.
    'Multiple exclamation marks,' he went on, shaking his head, 'are a sure sign of a diseased mind.'

    Surprise.
    - Spy
  • CervetusCervetus Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Dealwithit wrote: »
    It's unfortunate that life sometimes imitates art or vice versa. This story reminds me of an episode of Babylon 5 called "Believers".

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Believers_(Babylon_5)
    Spoiler:

    It's ironic, because the idea of this episode had its basis from a real life story that happened before 1994. This is just tangential to the debate. I don't think it will be last time we hear of similar stories in the future.

    If something in real life is similar to a fictional story that was itself based on a different real life account, I think that's just life imitating life.

    The libertarian response to anything is, "Sure, that works fine in practice, but it doesn't fly in theory."
  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS
    edited August 2009
    If childhood medical exams and doctor's visits are mandatory (from a legal standpoint), then we have to go a lot farther than medicaid to make it such that a visit costs people nothing. Put a clinic in every school.

    I approve of that, of course. But it'll never happen. And until it does, you can't litigate against parents who do dumb things re: their children's medical care.

    nice dichotomy there

    unless medical care is free we can't ask parents not to neglect their children to the point the child dies?

    we're not "litigating against parents" we're litigating to protect children

  • DealwithitDealwithit Registered User
    edited August 2009
    Cervetus wrote: »
    Dealwithit wrote: »
    It's unfortunate that life sometimes imitates art or vice versa. This story reminds me of an episode of Babylon 5 called "Believers".

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Believers_(Babylon_5)
    Spoiler:

    It's ironic, because the idea of this episode had its basis from a real life story that happened before 1994. This is just tangential to the debate. I don't think it will be last time we hear of similar stories in the future.

    If something in real life is similar to a fictional story that was itself based on a different real life account, I think that's just life imitating life.

    Apologies, I was reading about how the plot of that episode can into being from the production notes by the creator of the series when I was checking the source after I pasted the wiki article. I didn't know that the episode story idea was actually based on headlines from that period of time until I checked. My statement after the spoiler is a reflection of that, and I didn't want to digress too much because as I stated this is rather tangential to the topic at hand.

    All in all, if it's been 15 years, and we still have a tragedy like this happening again, then these group of people still haven't learned and will continue to put their children at risk. Obviously, they weren't deterred by the law, so what else can be done? Better education would help alleviate such ignorance of medicine, but then again if the parents of this couple were already indoctrinated with such a notion then how else would they be able to be educated? Sadly, I can only see this occurring again unless there is a fundamental change in their belief system.

  • Hockey JohnstonHockey Johnston Registered User
    edited August 2009
    Medopine wrote: »
    we're not "litigating against parents" we're litigating to protect children

    And you're making fun of me for nonsensical dichotomies?

    Either way, parents have a great deal of latitude to make life and death decisions about their kids without having to fear that the government is going to come in and prosecute them. The only difference between this case and a case where a parent waited a day longer than they should have to take the kid to the ER is that we have a parent who openly attributes their negligence to religion. If this guy were sorry and non-ideological, I'd imagine no one would dream of bringing charges.

    Think about how many sane parents make a medical decision that a jury might later find to be too risky or not aggressive enough. It's much easier to simply take the kids away than it is to prove that their parents should face criminal charges.

  • AtomBombAtomBomb Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    In regards to not punishing these folks as it doesn't have a preventative or reformative effect, I think that punishment can still have a purpose beyond make these dipshits suffer. It seems that many religious extremists subscribe to this belief in eventual vindication. No matter how fucked up something is, if there is ever a point where something is better than the worst it could be that shows they are right. Sure, god let you kid die. But when you got put on trial god was in the hearts of the judge or the jurors or whomever making sure you’d get released, to let you know that you did the right thing by letting your kid die.

    Of course, they’ll see the silver lining in any situation. If you put them in jail it’s because god wants them to minister to the prisoners. If you execute them it’s because god loves them so much he wants to “call them home”.

    I just got a 3DS XL. Add me! 2879-0925-7162
  • CervetusCervetus Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    I think another reason to prosecute is to stymie other people converting to their ways. Instead of being that nice neighbor with the adorable and well-behaved kids, a member of Followers of Christ becomes that weird felon cultist.

    The libertarian response to anything is, "Sure, that works fine in practice, but it doesn't fly in theory."
  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS
    edited August 2009
    Medopine wrote: »
    we're not "litigating against parents" we're litigating to protect children

    And you're making fun of me for nonsensical dichotomies?

    Either way, parents have a great deal of latitude to make life and death decisions about their kids without having to fear that the government is going to come in and prosecute them. The only difference between this case and a case where a parent waited a day longer than they should have

    no dude, no

    there's a standard, and it's not just negligence, it's criminal negligence

    not even taking your kid to the doctor for such a long period of time that the cyst growing on her neck gets large enough to impede her airway and her ribs start showing from malnutrition is not the same as waiting a day longer than you should have

    the slippery slope argument here is stupid. these parents were criminally negligent because they refused to seek medical care for their child even after she was obviously in need of it, not because "oh man they're religious! get em!"

    in fact I don't even know why you're making the argument that so many juries would convict parents because even in this extreme situation, the jury didn't convict!

  • PracticalProblemSolverPracticalProblemSolver Registered User
    edited February 2010
    I'm resurrecting this thread because the grandparents of the original child have been found guilty of criminally negligent homicide in the death of their 16 year old son. The son died from a urinary tract blockage several months after Ava died.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/02/01/crimesider/entry6162918.shtml

  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Jesus Christ these people are something else. One of your kids dies because you didn't give her medicine, and you think it's a fucking great idea to do it again?!

    metroid_sig.jpg
  • BamaBama Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Why didn't they just anoint themselves and pray before going to court, instead of hiring council?

    "Despite all the bitching, if Diablo 3 sucks, I will eat my own cock. Counter-claim: If Diablo 3 does not suck, I will have a list of whiners who need to eat cocks." - Zen Vulgarity
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Bama wrote: »
    Why didn't they just anoint themselves and pray before going to court, instead of hiring council?
    God failed them once and they wised up?

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. On Hiatus!

    Any gamers in the Danville, PA area? PM me if you're interested in some tabletop gaming.
  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Bama wrote: »
    Why didn't they just anoint themselves and pray before going to court, instead of hiring council?
    God failed them once and they wised up?

    These are the grandparents of the kid who just died from faith healing. So no, they didn't.

    metroid_sig.jpg
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    I found this very troubling because to the best of my knowledge, the offences they were charged with do not require specific intent. Reading one of the linked articles confirmed that. I hope the prosecutors appeal because juries should not get away with selectively ignoring or adding requirements to offences.

    If you don't (as you admit) actually know the details of the offenses charged with, what elements the prosecutors should have to prove and what evidence was offered to prove them, it's ignorant and irresponsible to go flying off and assume that the jury made shit up.

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • Grid SystemGrid System Registered User
    edited February 2010
    I'm not sure why* I'm bothering, but:
    Article wrote:
    Jurors spent a full week crafting a verdict. They negotiated a thicket of values - religious freedom, parental rights, the rule of law - and then cleared their own path to justice.

    In explaining their mixed verdict, the presiding juror emphasized that the Worthingtons did not intentionally cause Ava's death, even though intent was not a requirement for a guilty verdict on either charge.

    "Regardless of what the instructions were, a lot of people on the jury believed there was supposed to be intent," said Ken Byers, one of two jurors who believed Carl Worthington was guilty of manslaughter. "Some people couldn't clear that hump."

    From here.

  • PracticalProblemSolverPracticalProblemSolver Registered User
    edited February 2010
    mythago wrote: »
    I found this very troubling because to the best of my knowledge, the offences they were charged with do not require specific intent. Reading one of the linked articles confirmed that. I hope the prosecutors appeal because juries should not get away with selectively ignoring or adding requirements to offences.

    If you don't (as you admit) actually know the details of the offenses charged with, what elements the prosecutors should have to prove and what evidence was offered to prove them, it's ignorant and irresponsible to go flying off and assume that the jury made shit up.

    The law was changed with the specific intent of prosecuting these exact type of situations because of the number of avoidable deaths of children in their church. The jury made shit up, they even said so after the case.

  • AegisAegis Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    I'm not sure why* I'm bothering, but:
    Article wrote:
    Jurors spent a full week crafting a verdict. They negotiated a thicket of values - religious freedom, parental rights, the rule of law - and then cleared their own path to justice.

    In explaining their mixed verdict, the presiding juror emphasized that the Worthingtons did not intentionally cause Ava's death, even though intent was not a requirement for a guilty verdict on either charge.

    "Regardless of what the instructions were, a lot of people on the jury believed there was supposed to be intent," said Ken Byers, one of two jurors who believed Carl Worthington was guilty of manslaughter. "Some people couldn't clear that hump."

    From here.

    I'm wondering if there may need to be clearer and longer instructions to juries on the difference between charges that require intent and those that don't, and why intent doesn't matter for a particular charge.

  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    The law was changed with the specific intent of prosecuting these exact type of situations because of the number of avoidable deaths of children in their church. The jury made shit up, they even said so after the case.

    No, the jury didn't make shit up. What the intent of the law is != what the law actually says. The law in Oregon was changed because it used to be a defense to say "well, but we were faith healing".

    It is true, if you read the article, that a couple of jurors (not "the jury") couldn't get over the fact that the parents didn't mean to kill their kid. That's a far cry from pretending that the whole jury made shit up.

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    mythago wrote: »
    The law was changed with the specific intent of prosecuting these exact type of situations because of the number of avoidable deaths of children in their church. The jury made shit up, they even said so after the case.

    No, the jury didn't make shit up. What the intent of the law is != what the law actually says. The law in Oregon was changed because it used to be a defense to say "well, but we were faith healing".

    It is true, if you read the article, that a couple of jurors (not "the jury") couldn't get over the fact that the parents didn't mean to kill their kid. That's a far cry from pretending that the whole jury made shit up.

    no, it really isn't. The jury was instructed that intent was irrelevant in that case, and chose to ignore that instruction.

    It was nice to see another couple from the same church just get convicted (although only of criminal negligence) the other day, though.

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    if the rapture don't come cousin, then pass the guns
    I'll burn'em for the return of my investment funds
1235»
Sign In or Register to comment.