We have a new update on The Future of the Penny Arcade Forums.
Faith healers acquitted of manslaughter in the death of their two year old
Eat it You Nasty Pig.
tell homeland security'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
tell homeland security'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
linky link. here's another article with some more information
Ava Worthington died of complications of pneumonia after her parents opted for faith healing over professional medical treatment. This case was interesting because it was the first test of Oregon's recent law attempting to make parents criminally liable for deaths and injuries as a result of pursuing faith healing over traditional medical treatment. Obviously, it didn't work out that way. The jury appears to have been confused over what the law was and what their role was, as well. The case raised a number of interesting problems with the law, one of the foremost being that almost no one things that the penalties involved provide any kind of deterrent or rehabilitative function.
So, whatcha think D&D? Should parents have the right to a religious defense in the death of a child? Is there any punishment that makes sense here? Is enforcement too thorny to handle?
OREGON CITY, Ore. - The jury forewoman in the trial of an Oregon couple acquitted of manslaughter in their daughter's pneumonia death says she felt the pair were "loving people" who didn't mean to harm the 15-month-old girl.
The jury knew Carl Brent Worthington and his pregnant wife, Raylene, "had no intentions of ever harming their child," Ashlee Santos told reporters on Thursday outside the Clackamas County Courthouse. "If anything, the evidence showed the opposite."
...
In the Worthington trial, prosecutors said Ava failed to flourish most of her life because of a neck cyst that impeded her breathing and eating, contributing to her fatal pneumonia. She died on a Sunday evening after family and church members prayed over her and anointed her with olive oil.
The state medical examiner said she could easily have been saved with antibiotics.
But the defense attacked the credibility of the state's expert witnesses and said the child died of a fast-moving blood infection that can accompany pneumonia. The Worthingtons testified that the cyst was a trait in the father's family and that they thought their child only had a cold.
Ava Worthington died of complications of pneumonia after her parents opted for faith healing over professional medical treatment. This case was interesting because it was the first test of Oregon's recent law attempting to make parents criminally liable for deaths and injuries as a result of pursuing faith healing over traditional medical treatment. Obviously, it didn't work out that way. The jury appears to have been confused over what the law was and what their role was, as well. The case raised a number of interesting problems with the law, one of the foremost being that almost no one things that the penalties involved provide any kind of deterrent or rehabilitative function.
So, whatcha think D&D? Should parents have the right to a religious defense in the death of a child? Is there any punishment that makes sense here? Is enforcement too thorny to handle?
hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
0
Posts
Is there some kind of law about neglect leading to death?
Then again, the parents probably didn't think they were neglecting the kid what with all the praying they did. But I suppose medical ignorance leading to death isn't on the books.
I don't give a flying fuck if they think their trouble with the law is a badge of honour, that has nothing to do with whether they mistreated their kid. And I think either they both should have been convicted or neither.
That said, the law doesn't appear to draw a line between emergency treatment and things like immunisation or wildly nonstandard diets. I may think parents are neglectful ignorant assholes for not immunising, and may wish to beat those parents who act out their bizarre food phobias on their unfortunate sprogs, but that's not on the same level as avoiding immediately lifesaving treatments.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I don't see why one precludes the other. How about you dose them up with antibiotics and then give them a healthy dose of vitamin jesus once the trained medical professionals have had a go? You can even give god credit when your child recovers if it makes you feel better...
There's a documentary about that film crew that snuck into North Korea together with a surgeon that cured cataracts that made North Koreans blind, mostly caused by malnutrition in the first place.
As soon as the bandages came off and they could see again they thanked the Dear Leader Kim-Jong Il for curing their sight, only his greatness could have done it, etc etc etc.
Not a single word to the surgeon.
That was a very sobering insight about faith/indoctrination.
I think the jury had a point here in that how should the court go about defining reasonable.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
The vast majority of North Korean ex-patriots become evangelical Christians.
Other, more cynical ex-patriots have pointed out the commonality between the Kim clan's personality cult and religions such as Christianity.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
You mean about it going too far.
But if a parent makes a conscious decision to forego medical treatment and instead use MAGIC? Fuck that.
Well it could be indicative of a badly written law (or inadequate jury instruction) if it fails to take into account the fact that juries tend to be people. Especially if the case is sensitive and easily resonates.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
To my knowledge, this isn't something that can be appealed.
Erm, isn't that the point of "manslaughter"? That the intention wasn't necessarily there, but someone still died and it was your fault? If someone has intentions of killing someone and succeeds, that's murder. If someone is a neglectful driver and runs someone over, that's manslaughter.
Ya, I'm pretty sure prosecutors can't appeal, they only get the one shot. Defendants can appeal, but you can't try a defendant twice for the same thing just because you didn't convict the first time (I think that's what double jeopardy is? Might be wrong).
Don't worry, I'm sure the kid will be safe.
As long as it never gets sick.
D:D:D:
God damn, that's fucked up.
Again, if this is the fault of anyone, it's the judge/prosecution for not better conveying how/why intent doesn't matter in manslaughter charges.
The jury did seem to otherwise show they had at least some understanding of the case in general by finding the husband guilty of another misdemeanour charge while dismissing the charge against the mother, given the patriarchal nature of the church/community.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Yeah, while a tragedy I find it harder to get all up in arms over this case compared to others where children die over faith healing. They didn't know how sick their child was. This could have happened to an ignorant family as well. It's not like they went to the doctor, the doctor gave a treatment and they said FUCK YOU, HEATHEN. GOD WILL HEAL MY CHILD. Which has been the case in some of the other incidents.
Well, I would like to not die and I'm sure the child felt the same way.
I saw that. This old lady was going on about "Thank you, Great Leader. I promise to work harder in the salt mines to bring you more salt to increase your happiness!"
When asked about the hardest thing about her mother being blind, a woman said "Without a doubt, that she can not look upon our Great Leader"
Yup, and thanks to you they're just 'people' who happen to get away with letting their children die. If the child falls in a lake do they wait for jesus to part the waters?
What a colossal jury failure, Followers of Christ current child manslaughter count: 21. No doubt this number will continue to rise now that they know a law put into effect specifically to stop their criminal neglect of children won't be enforced by juries. All this taking place minutes away from the best children's hospital in the pacific nw.
"Dear God, please protect me from your followers."
While I can understand the underlying point behind this, I'm fairly sure the parents involved also would have preferred their child not die. That they chose a non-medical way to address this doesn't indicate they had no concern for the welfare of their child.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Pneumonia is hard to miss. I don't buy that they didn't know their kid was seriously sick.
If at first you don't succeed...
It's too complicated for me to handle. I know they did wrong, but what kind of punishment they (the parents) receive is just too much.
The death count for children of the people who think this way is rising. The evidence is there that God is not intervening for these people and it was ignored. I'm sure their preference was that their child live, but obviously their nonsense beliefs superseded the life of their child and that's just ridiculous.
Stupidity should not be a valid defense.
The law is pretty clear that it is illegal to force religious medical views on children.
Can you pull up that information, like source citing? It's not that I don't believe you, but I'm willing to be shown I'm wrong when it comes to written law (which is what we are in America really; a nation of written law rather than the intent of law - but that's another thread).
I was commenting more on the implication (through your use of a biblical tenet and the appeal to the child's wish to live) that parents in these situations don't care for the welfare of their child, as opposed to any legal defense.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
I think you're giving the medicine is the devil crowd waaaaaaay too much credit for smarts there.
This is how law is handled, though. Particularly in civil cases, but also in criminal cases... "how would a reasonable person handle X situation" is generally the benchmark.
https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197970666737/
Yes I know, I'm just wondering whether the courts should be elaborating a bit more on what they're expecting in terms of 'reasonable' given the ambiguity present in using the term. Are they wanting the jury to be including location-cultural contexts in determing what would be reasonable when such things are applicable to the case in question? If so, should they explicitly outline such or should it be the responsibility of the prosecutor to show it has no bearing?
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
You must be new to oregon if you don't remember the faith healer apocalypse of 1999, when the house passed bill 2494 which made amendments specifically targeting faith healers and removing their protections after a medical examiner alleged that they killed 25 children over 10 years and the Oregonian alleged that 21 out of the 78 children buried in their cemetery died of preventable causes.
Since you asked for a source: http://www.leg.state.or.us/99reg/measures/hb2400.dir/hb2494.en.html
edit: they do have protection federally and in many other states