If people like this are taking the religious defence they should be judged on religious grounds too. Therefore I propose that obviously God felt they had insufficent faith and we should be punishing them for it.
Fendall on
0
Gabriel_Pitt(effective against Russian warships)Registered Userregular
also how the fuck do you convict dad and not mom of mistreatment
oh I forgot because moms are loving and nurturing and would never hurt their children, right!
Apparently, since it's a patriarchal sect, the mother didn't really have much of a say in the matter.
During the trial, the defense made a point of noting that in families of the Worthingtons' church, the Followers of Christ, husbands make all important decisions.
And let me go ahead and write two little hash marks under the "religion is bad" tally that I've been keeping track of. One for the parents for doing this in the first place, and another for the jury who acquitted them.
Melkster on
0
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
edited July 2009
There's actually a website (probably several) keeping track of all the hashmarks. The exact name escapes me, it's something like "What's the harm?" It catalogs all the reported deaths caused by people choosing religious beliefs over science. Read it if you're in the mood to hate humanity for a while.
also how the fuck do you convict dad and not mom of mistreatment
oh I forgot because moms are loving and nurturing and would never hurt their children, right!
Apparently, since it's a patriarchal sect, the mother didn't really have much of a say in the matter.
During the trial, the defense made a point of noting that in families of the Worthingtons' church, the Followers of Christ, husbands make all important decisions.
I'm fine with that part of the decision.
I'm not fine with this. Being a pathetic wretch and not standing up for your child is just as bad. Both are equally guilty. One by choosing to negelect, the other for choosing to go along with it.
Elitistb on
0
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
edited July 2009
The Jury system is the most broken part of the American justice system. I've never understood why two (or more) licensed barristers and a credentialed judge must make a case to twelve possible morons.
My dad was foreman on a jury about 10 years ago for a case involving a woman suing a hospital for a botched surgery. The scrub team left operational hardware (needles, sponges) in the woman's abdomen, which became extremely infected. When she asked for further evaluation when she became ill from all this, they never ran any tests or x-rays, but sent her to a psychiatric counselor for hypochondria.
The jury ruled against the woman because "She don't need that money, she's just a greedy bitch."
The Jury system is the most broken part of the American justice system. I've never understood why two (or more) licensed barristers and a credentialed judge must make a case to twelve possible morons.
My dad was foreman on a jury about 10 years ago for a case involving a woman suing a hospital for a botched surgery. The scrub team left operational hardware (needles, sponges) in the woman's abdomen, which became extremely infected. When she asked for further evaluation when she became ill from all this, they never ran any tests or x-rays, but sent her to a psychiatric counselor for hypochondria.
The jury ruled against the woman because "She don't need that money, she's just a greedy bitch."
Well, no offense, but if you're in Texas, they say that's the region to go have a lawsuit in if you want a stupid jury. :?
Scooter on
0
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Well, no offense, but if you're in Texas, they say that's the region to go have a lawsuit in if you want a stupid jury. :?
No, no offense taken. I'm a native Texan, but I'm not going to act like it's a paragon of intelligence down here. And this particular case was in northeast Texas, which has more in common with banjo-pickin' Appalachians than it does with cowboys.
But yeah, it's unfathomable to me how we base our legal precedent on the collective decisions of people who aren't even required to have finished high school.
But yeah, it's unfathomable to me how we base our legal precedent on the collective decisions of people who aren't even required to have finished high school.
But yeah, it's unfathomable to me how we base our legal precedent on the collective decisions of people who aren't even required to have finished high school.
Democracy's a bitch sometimes.
And it's supposed to work better when the general public is more educated. It's more the education system's fault than the philosophy of the court.
But yeah, it's unfathomable to me how we base our legal precedent on the collective decisions of people who aren't even required to have finished high school.
Democracy's a bitch sometimes.
And it's supposed to work better when the general public is more educated. It's more the education system's fault than the philosophy of the court.
Still shitty in these cases though.
Yeah, but I think there's gotta be room for improvement if a case can end wrongly and people just go, "Welp, I sure wish the jurors weren't a bunch of inbred fundamentalists. Maybe next time . . . "
I've never been on a jury. To anyone who has, do they inquire as to your educational level? I mean, thanks to juries here in Texas, we've practically legalized vigilantism.
Far from complete but still a ton on there. Fuck humanity....
... Wow. I just read through just a few articles on the children's section of that site. We need to get over this whole idea that children are somehow the property of their parents. Just because you have the right to be religious idiot who would rather put his faith in prayer over medicine doesn't mean you have the right to get your children killed too.
When this case first came up on these boards, I stumbled over the 'reasonable' qualification as well. It's far too ambiguous in my opinion. Reasonableness requirement plus a jury of ones peers equates to widely differing rulings depending on locality.
It reminds me of the cases of parents who provide inadequate diets for their children in pursuit of a vegan lifestyle. In what appears to be similar circumstances, you have one set of parents found innocent of manslaughter (guilty of neglect), and another set who are found guilty of malice murder.
Obviously, these cases aren't directly comparable because they take place under different sets of laws (Georgia found the couple guilty, Florida found a couple guilty only of neglect), however I think they speak to the problem of defining what ignorance will be tolerated when it comes to another person's child.
Criminal homicide constitutes manslaughter in the second degree when:
It is committed recklessly;
A person intentionally causes or aids another person to commit suicide; or
A person, with criminal negligence, causes the death of a child under 14 years of age or a dependent person, as defined in ORS 163.205 (Criminal mistreatment in the first degree), and:
The person has previously engaged in a pattern or practice of assault or torture of the victim or another child under 14 years of age or a dependent person; or
The person causes the death by neglect or maltreatment, as defined in ORS 163.115 (Murder).
Manslaughter in the second degree is a Class B felony.
A person commits the crime of criminal mistreatment in the first degree if:
The person, in violation of a legal duty to provide care for another person, or having assumed the permanent or temporary care, custody or responsibility for the supervision of another person, intentionally or knowingly withholds necessary and adequate food, physical care or medical attention from that other person; or
The person, in violation of a legal duty to provide care for a dependent person or elderly person, or having assumed the permanent or temporary care, custody or responsibility for the supervision of a dependent person or elderly person, intentionally or knowingly:
Causes physical injury or injuries to the dependent person or elderly person;
Deserts the dependent person or elderly person in a place with the intent to abandon that person;
Leaves the dependent person or elderly person unattended at a place for such a period of time as may be likely to endanger the health or welfare of that person;
Hides the dependent person’s or elderly person’s money or property or takes the money or property for, or appropriates the money or property to, any use or purpose not in the due and lawful execution of the person’s responsibility;
Takes charge of a dependent or elderly person for the purpose of fraud; or
Leaves the dependent person or elderly person, or causes the dependent person or elderly person to enter or remain, in or upon premises where a chemical reaction involving one or more precursor substances:
Is occurring as part of unlawfully manufacturing a controlled substance or grinding, soaking or otherwise breaking down a precursor substance for the unlawful manufacture of a controlled substance; or
Has occurred as part of unlawfully manufacturing a controlled substance or grinding, soaking or otherwise breaking down a precursor substance for the unlawful manufacture of a controlled substance and the premises have not been certified as fit for use under ORS 453.885 (Decontamination of property).
As used in this section:
"Controlled substance" has the meaning given that term in ORS 475.005 (Definitions for ORS 475.005 to 475.285 and 475.840 to 475.980).
"Dependent person" means a person who because of either age or a physical or mental disability is dependent upon another to provide for the person’s physical needs.
"Elderly person" means a person 65 years of age or older.
"Legal duty" includes but is not limited to a duty created by familial relationship, court order, contractual agreement or statutory or case law.
"Precursor substance" has the meaning given that term in ORS 475.940 (Precursor substances described).
Criminal mistreatment in the first degree is a Class C felony.
Except as provided in ORS 163.118 (Manslaughter in the first degree) and 163.125 (Manslaughter in the second degree), criminal homicide constitutes murder:
When it is committed intentionally, except that it is an affirmative defense that, at the time of the homicide, the defendant was under the influence of an extreme emotional disturbance;
When it is committed by a person, acting either alone or with one or more persons, who commits or attempts to commit any of the following crimes and in the course of and in furtherance of the crime the person is committing or attempting to commit, or during the immediate flight therefrom, the person, or another participant if there be any, causes the death of a person other than one of the participants:
Arson in the first degree as defined in ORS 164.325 (Arson in the first degree);
Criminal mischief in the first degree by means of an explosive as defined in ORS 164.365 (Criminal mischief in the first degree);
Burglary in the first degree as defined in ORS 164.225 (Burglary in the first degree);
Escape in the first degree as defined in ORS 162.165 (Escape in the first degree);
Kidnapping in the second degree as defined in ORS 163.225 (Kidnapping in the second degree);
Kidnapping in the first degree as defined in ORS 163.235 (Kidnapping in the first degree);
Robbery in the first degree as defined in ORS 164.415 (Robbery in the first degree);
Any felony sexual offense in the first degree defined in this chapter;
Compelling prostitution as defined in ORS 167.017 (Compelling prostitution); or
Assault in the first degree, as defined in ORS 163.185 (Assault in the first degree), and the victim is under 14 years of age, or assault in the second degree, as defined in ORS 163.175 (Assault in the second degree) (1)(a) or (b), and the victim is under 14 years of age; or
By abuse when a person, recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life, causes the death of a child under 14 years of age or a dependent person, as defined in ORS 163.205 (Criminal mistreatment in the first degree), and:
The person has previously engaged in a pattern or practice of assault or torture of the victim or another child under 14 years of age or a dependent person; or
The person causes the death by neglect or maltreatment.
An accusatory instrument alleging murder by abuse under subsection (1)(c) of this section need not allege specific incidents of assault or torture.
It is an affirmative defense to a charge of violating subsection (1)(b) of this section that the defendant:
Was not the only participant in the underlying crime;
Did not commit the homicidal act or in any way solicit, request, command, importune, cause or aid in the commission thereof;
Was not armed with a dangerous or deadly weapon;
Had no reasonable ground to believe that any other participant was armed with a dangerous or deadly weapon; and
Had no reasonable ground to believe that any other participant intended to engage in conduct likely to result in death.
It is an affirmative defense to a charge of violating subsection (1)(c)(B) of this section that the child or dependent person was under care or treatment solely by spiritual means pursuant to the religious beliefs or practices of the child or person or the parent or guardian of the child or person.
A person convicted of murder, who was at least 15 years of age at the time of committing the murder, shall be punished by imprisonment for life.
When a defendant is convicted of murder under this section, the court shall order that the defendant shall be confined for a minimum of 25 years without possibility of parole, release to post-prison supervision, release on work release or any form of temporary leave or employment at a forest or work camp.
At any time after completion of a minimum period of confinement pursuant to paragraph (b) of this subsection, the State Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, upon the petition of a prisoner so confined, shall hold a hearing to determine if the prisoner is likely to be rehabilitated within a reasonable period of time. The sole issue is whether or not the prisoner is likely to be rehabilitated within a reasonable period of time. At the hearing the prisoner has:
The burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence the likelihood of rehabilitation within a reasonable period of time; and
The right, if the prisoner is without sufficient funds to employ an attorney, to be represented by legal counsel, appointed by the board, at board expense; and
The right to a subpoena upon a showing of the general relevance and reasonable scope of the evidence sought, provided that any subpoena issued on behalf of the prisoner must be issued by the State Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision pursuant to rules adopted by the board.
If, upon hearing all of the evidence, the board, upon a unanimous vote of all of its members, finds that the prisoner is capable of rehabilitation and that the terms of the prisoner’s confinement should be changed to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole, release to post-prison supervision or work release, it shall enter an order to that effect and the order shall convert the terms of the prisoner’s confinement to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole, release to post-prison supervision or work release and may set a release date. Otherwise, the board shall deny the relief sought in the petition.
The board’s final order shall be accompanied by findings of fact and conclusions of law. The findings of fact shall consist of a concise statement of the underlying facts supporting the findings as to each contested issue of fact and as to each ultimate fact required to support the board’s order.
Not less than two years after the denial of the relief sought in a petition under paragraph (c) of this subsection, the prisoner may petition again for a change in the terms of confinement. Further petitions for a change may be filed at intervals of not less than two years thereafter.
As used in this section:
"Assault" means to intentionally, knowingly or recklessly cause physical injury to another person. "Assault" does not include the causing of physical injury in a motor vehicle accident that occurs by reason of the reckless conduct of a defendant.
"Neglect or maltreatment" means a violation of ORS 163.535 (Abandonment of a child), 163.545 (Child neglect in the second degree) or 163.547 (Child neglect in the first degree) or a failure to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter or medical care that is likely to endanger the health or welfare of a child under 14 years of age or a dependent person. This paragraph is not intended to replace or affect the duty or standard of care required under ORS chapter 677.
"Pattern or practice" means one or more previous episodes.
"Torture" means to intentionally inflict intense physical pain upon an unwilling victim as a separate objective apart from any other purpose.
As used in chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971, and ORS 166.635, unless the context requires otherwise:
“Act” means a bodily movement.
“Voluntary act” means a bodily movement performed consciously and includes the conscious possession or control of property.
“Omission” means a failure to perform an act the performance of which is required by law.
“Conduct” means an act or omission and its accompanying mental state.
“To act” means either to perform an act or to omit to perform an act.
“Culpable mental state” means intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or with criminal negligence as these terms are defined in subsections (7), (8), (9) and (10) of this section.
“Intentionally” or “with intent,” when used with respect to a result or to conduct described by a statute defining an offense, means that a person acts with a conscious objective to cause the result or to engage in the conduct so described.
“Knowingly” or “with knowledge,” when used with respect to conduct or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense, means that a person acts with an awareness that the conduct of the person is of a nature so described or that a circumstance so described exists.
“Recklessly,” when used with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense, means that a person is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that disregard thereof constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.
“Criminal negligence” or “criminally negligent,” when used with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense, means that a person fails to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to be aware of it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.
[1971 c.743 §7; 1973 c.139 §2]
I'm not sure the jury failed to understand their duty, I think they just did not believe that the parents lack of treatment constituted a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe. There were a number of quotes from jurors about how they believed the parents when they said that they thought the child just had a cold and was recovering.
lazegamer on
I would download a car.
0
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
edited July 2009
While I agree with you regarding the issue of the ambiguity of 'reasonable', the fact that the jury was quoted afterwards as mentioning intent (and the lack thereof) as part of why they acquitted seems like that consideration was something that was high priority in their minds when it shouldn't have been.
While I agree with you regarding the issue of the ambiguity of 'reasonable', the fact that the jury was quoted afterwards as mentioning intent (and the lack thereof) as part of why they acquitted seems like that consideration was something that was high priority in their minds when it shouldn't have been.
Yeah, that is worrisome. If it weren't for the other quotes I would be tempted to assume that they ignored the actual law. Does anyone know where the quotes came from, i.e. are they part of a larger interview or from a press conference? I'd like to know if the answers were from directed questions or if this is what some of them said when giving carte blanche to discuss their findings. I've mostly only seen the snippets quoted in the AP story.
While I agree with you regarding the issue of the ambiguity of 'reasonable', the fact that the jury was quoted afterwards as mentioning intent (and the lack thereof) as part of why they acquitted seems like that consideration was something that was high priority in their minds when it shouldn't have been.
Either that or they feel like they need to try and use some false complication to explain their decision. (That is, they could be using the intent angle to try and add strength to their judgment call of what a reasonable person would do in that situation.)
Criminal homicide constitutes manslaughter in the second degree when:
It is committed recklessly;
A person intentionally causes or aids another person to commit suicide; or
A person, with criminal negligence, causes the death of a child under 14 years of age or a dependent person, as defined in ORS 163.205 (Criminal mistreatment in the first degree), and:
The person has previously engaged in a pattern or practice of assault or torture of the victim or another child under 14 years of age or a dependent person; or
The person causes the death by neglect or maltreatment, as defined in ORS 163.115 (Murder).
Manslaughter in the second degree is a Class B felony.
# "Neglect or maltreatment" means a violation of ORS 163.535 (Abandonment of a child), 163.545 (Child neglect in the second degree) or 163.547 (Child neglect in the first degree) or a failure to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter or medical care that is likely to endanger the health or welfare of a child under 14 years of age or a dependent person. This paragraph is not intended to replace or affect the duty or standard of care required under ORS chapter 677.
As used in chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971, and ORS 166.635, unless the context requires otherwise:
“Act” means a bodily movement.
“Voluntary act” means a bodily movement performed consciously and includes the conscious possession or control of property.
“Omission” means a failure to perform an act the performance of which is required by law.
“Conduct” means an act or omission and its accompanying mental state.
“To act” means either to perform an act or to omit to perform an act.
“Culpable mental state” means intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or with criminal negligence as these terms are defined in subsections (7), (8), (9) and (10) of this section.
“Intentionally” or “with intent,” when used with respect to a result or to conduct described by a statute defining an offense, means that a person acts with a conscious objective to cause the result or to engage in the conduct so described.
“Knowingly” or “with knowledge,” when used with respect to conduct or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense, means that a person acts with an awareness that the conduct of the person is of a nature so described or that a circumstance so described exists.
“Recklessly,” when used with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense, means that a person is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that disregard thereof constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.
“Criminal negligence” or “criminally negligent,” when used with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense, means that a person fails to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to be aware of it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.
[1971 c.743 §7; 1973 c.139 §2]
I'm not sure the jury failed to understand their duty, I think they just did not believe that the parents lack of treatment constituted a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe. There were a number of quotes from jurors about how they believed the parents when they said that they thought the child just had a cold and was recovering.
"Criminal homicide constitutes manslaughter in the second degree when ... a person, with criminal negligence, causes the death of a child under 14 years of age or a dependent person ... and the person causes the death by neglect or maltreatment, as defined in ORS 163.115 (Murder)." Neglect or maltreatment is so defined as, "a failure to provide adequate ... medical care that is likely to endanger the health or welfare of a child under 14 years of age or a dependent person."
To be culpable of criminal negligence, the person must "fail to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to be aware of it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation."
^ Those are the requirements for conviction of Manslaughter 2. The jury HAS ALREADY convicted the father of being "in violation of a legal duty to provide care for another person ... and intentionally or knowingly withholding necessary ... medical attention from that other person." (The requirements of being convicted of criminal mistreatment)
Now, from what I'm reading here, ALL you would need for a Manslaughter 2 conviction is the DEATH of the person due to criminal mistreatment (aka, the knowing withholding of medical attention from the other person). They've already convicted the father of knowingly withholding medical attention. The child has died. Therefore, they should have convicted him of Manslaughter 2.
I'm not a lawyer, but that seems like really obvious logic to me. Where am I wrong here?
As I read it, criminal mistreatment doesn't require criminal negligence, whereas Manslaughter in the second degree does. Hence the thing that kept his Criminal Mistreatment charge from elevating was that the jurors didn't believe that his failure to be aware of the risk constituted a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe.
As I read it, criminal mistreatment doesn't require criminal negligence, whereas Manslaughter in the second degree does. Hence the thing that kept his Criminal Mistreatment charge from elevating was that the jurors didn't believe that his failure to be aware of the risk constituted a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe.
Here's how criminal negligence is defined: "A person fails to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to be aware of it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation." It appears that he was NOT found to be guilty of this.
Here's how criminal mistreatment is defined: "The person, in violation of a legal duty to provide care for another person, or having assumed the permanent or temporary care, custody or responsibility for the supervision of another person, intentionally or knowingly withholds necessary and adequate food, physical care or medical attention from that other person." He was convicted of this.
Now it appears to me that there are TWO major differences between these definitions, as they apply to this case.
First, they are different in terms of what the accused KNOWS. Now, it seems to me that criminal mistreatment as defined here, which he was convicted of, appears to actually be MORE STRICT than criminal negligence, which he was acquitted of, in this way. For negligence, which he was not convicted of, the requirement is that he SHOULD HAVE BEEN be aware of the problem, but was not. And in criminal mistreatment, which he was convicted of, it says is that he withheld "necessary medical attention" and and did so KNOWINGLY AND INTENTIONALLY.
In other words, the Jury has ruled that he KNOWINGLY AND INTENTIONALLY withheld necessary medical attention.
Second,Negligence, which he was not convicted of, has to be a gross deviation of the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe. Mistreatment, which he was convicted of, is intentionally withholding necessary medical attention. Now, isn't intentionally withholding necessary medical attention NOT something that ANY reasonable person would do? I can't imagine any reasonable person withholding medical attention from their own child, which is what the Jury convicted of.
So, did the Jury think that a reasonable person WOULD, in some cases, withhold necessary medical attention to a child? And furthermore, the Jury believed that THIS WAS ONE OF THOSE CASES?
Point out my logic failures.
Melkster on
0
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
edited July 2009
You're assuming that 'reasonable' would be the same across the entire population, and wouldn't differ based on cultural variances. A Jehovah's witness could be considered acting reasonably in refusing blood transfusions within the context of his own community beliefs and what he was taught.
Hence the debate about whether or not there should be context-specific qualifications to the assessment of what is 'reasonable'.
My understanding of the "reasonable person" test is that it can admit some personal preferences, but ought not consider peculiar or idiosyncratic beliefs.
In this case, I would translate that to: a reasonable person would, upon discovering their child's illness, take whatever steps are mandated by their religion in addition to seeking medical care from trained professionals.
As I read it, the separation is between the perception of the risk and the reality of the risk. By all accounts, including the parents, the child was sick, and by not seeking out medical help they did not meet the requirements of providing necessary and adequate medical care. Criminal mistreatment seems cut and dry, you are guilty if you do not provide the care, whether you gauge the risk properly or not.
However, they convinced the jury that a reasonable person may not perceive the severity of the risk as requiring medical care. If your dependent develops a complication that a reasonable person would not foresee, you are not guilty of manslaughter if you did not treat the initial condition and the dependent dies.
So, did the Jury think that a reasonable person WOULD, in some cases, withhold necessary medical attention to a child? And furthermore, the Jury believed that THIS WAS ONE OF THOSE CASES?
The Jury system is the most broken part of the American justice system. I've never understood why two (or more) licensed barristers and a credentialed judge must make a case to twelve possible morons.
The idea is that the citizenry is supposed to have a part in the judicial process, and that it shouldn't be a system where all the decisions are made by a small elite. As a lawyer, I tend to agree. I see the jury system as one of the last lines of defense against abusive government.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
They really need to make a law that says you can't use religious beliefs as a defense against manslaughter, or any other charge of neglect when it comes to a child.
Posts
Oh well, let's just hope they get seriously sick soon.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
"God Acquitted On Grounds That It Happened On His "Day of Rest.""
I was talking about the whole of creation.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Well, if we break the time it took to create the Earth into 7 "God-days," God's Day of Rest is still like, half a billion years long.
Sigh.
And let me go ahead and write two little hash marks under the "religion is bad" tally that I've been keeping track of. One for the parents for doing this in the first place, and another for the jury who acquitted them.
Far from complete but still a ton on there. Fuck humanity....
My dad was foreman on a jury about 10 years ago for a case involving a woman suing a hospital for a botched surgery. The scrub team left operational hardware (needles, sponges) in the woman's abdomen, which became extremely infected. When she asked for further evaluation when she became ill from all this, they never ran any tests or x-rays, but sent her to a psychiatric counselor for hypochondria.
The jury ruled against the woman because "She don't need that money, she's just a greedy bitch."
Well, no offense, but if you're in Texas, they say that's the region to go have a lawsuit in if you want a stupid jury. :?
No, no offense taken. I'm a native Texan, but I'm not going to act like it's a paragon of intelligence down here. And this particular case was in northeast Texas, which has more in common with banjo-pickin' Appalachians than it does with cowboys.
But yeah, it's unfathomable to me how we base our legal precedent on the collective decisions of people who aren't even required to have finished high school.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
And it's supposed to work better when the general public is more educated. It's more the education system's fault than the philosophy of the court.
Still shitty in these cases though.
Yeah, but I think there's gotta be room for improvement if a case can end wrongly and people just go, "Welp, I sure wish the jurors weren't a bunch of inbred fundamentalists. Maybe next time . . . "
I've never been on a jury. To anyone who has, do they inquire as to your educational level? I mean, thanks to juries here in Texas, we've practically legalized vigilantism.
... Wow. I just read through just a few articles on the children's section of that site. We need to get over this whole idea that children are somehow the property of their parents. Just because you have the right to be religious idiot who would rather put his faith in prayer over medicine doesn't mean you have the right to get your children killed too.
But honestly, there is no excuse for this. No excuse at all.
The kid is dead because his parents were 100% unfiltered dumbass.
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
where being a dumbshit is totally ok if you stamp Jesus' face on it
It reminds me of the cases of parents who provide inadequate diets for their children in pursuit of a vegan lifestyle. In what appears to be similar circumstances, you have one set of parents found innocent of manslaughter (guilty of neglect), and another set who are found guilty of malice murder.
Obviously, these cases aren't directly comparable because they take place under different sets of laws (Georgia found the couple guilty, Florida found a couple guilty only of neglect), however I think they speak to the problem of defining what ignorance will be tolerated when it comes to another person's child.
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
I would say this was 100% the jury dropping the ball on actually following the standards of the law that y'know, they were required to follow
163.125 Manslaughter in the second degree
- Criminal homicide constitutes manslaughter in the second degree when:
- It is committed recklessly;
- A person intentionally causes or aids another person to commit suicide; or
- A person, with criminal negligence, causes the death of a child under 14 years of age or a dependent person, as defined in ORS 163.205 (Criminal mistreatment in the first degree), and:
- The person has previously engaged in a pattern or practice of assault or torture of the victim or another child under 14 years of age or a dependent person; or
- The person causes the death by neglect or maltreatment, as defined in ORS 163.115 (Murder).
- Manslaughter in the second degree is a Class B felony.
[1971 c.743 §89; 1975 c.577 §3; 1997 c.850 §4; 1999 c.954 §1]163.205 Criminal mistreatment in the first degree
- A person commits the crime of criminal mistreatment in the first degree if:
- The person, in violation of a legal duty to provide care for another person, or having assumed the permanent or temporary care, custody or responsibility for the supervision of another person, intentionally or knowingly withholds necessary and adequate food, physical care or medical attention from that other person; or
- The person, in violation of a legal duty to provide care for a dependent person or elderly person, or having assumed the permanent or temporary care, custody or responsibility for the supervision of a dependent person or elderly person, intentionally or knowingly:
- Causes physical injury or injuries to the dependent person or elderly person;
- Deserts the dependent person or elderly person in a place with the intent to abandon that person;
- Leaves the dependent person or elderly person unattended at a place for such a period of time as may be likely to endanger the health or welfare of that person;
- Hides the dependent person’s or elderly person’s money or property or takes the money or property for, or appropriates the money or property to, any use or purpose not in the due and lawful execution of the person’s responsibility;
- Takes charge of a dependent or elderly person for the purpose of fraud; or
- Leaves the dependent person or elderly person, or causes the dependent person or elderly person to enter or remain, in or upon premises where a chemical reaction involving one or more precursor substances:
- Is occurring as part of unlawfully manufacturing a controlled substance or grinding, soaking or otherwise breaking down a precursor substance for the unlawful manufacture of a controlled substance; or
- Has occurred as part of unlawfully manufacturing a controlled substance or grinding, soaking or otherwise breaking down a precursor substance for the unlawful manufacture of a controlled substance and the premises have not been certified as fit for use under ORS 453.885 (Decontamination of property).
- As used in this section:
- "Controlled substance" has the meaning given that term in ORS 475.005 (Definitions for ORS 475.005 to 475.285 and 475.840 to 475.980).
- "Dependent person" means a person who because of either age or a physical or mental disability is dependent upon another to provide for the person’s physical needs.
- "Elderly person" means a person 65 years of age or older.
- "Legal duty" includes but is not limited to a duty created by familial relationship, court order, contractual agreement or statutory or case law.
- "Precursor substance" has the meaning given that term in ORS 475.940 (Precursor substances described).
- Criminal mistreatment in the first degree is a Class C felony.
[1973 c.627 §3; 1981 c.486 §1; 1993 c.364 §2; 2005 c.708 §1]163.115 Murder
- Except as provided in ORS 163.118 (Manslaughter in the first degree) and 163.125 (Manslaughter in the second degree), criminal homicide constitutes murder:
- When it is committed intentionally, except that it is an affirmative defense that, at the time of the homicide, the defendant was under the influence of an extreme emotional disturbance;
- When it is committed by a person, acting either alone or with one or more persons, who commits or attempts to commit any of the following crimes and in the course of and in furtherance of the crime the person is committing or attempting to commit, or during the immediate flight therefrom, the person, or another participant if there be any, causes the death of a person other than one of the participants:
- Arson in the first degree as defined in ORS 164.325 (Arson in the first degree);
- Criminal mischief in the first degree by means of an explosive as defined in ORS 164.365 (Criminal mischief in the first degree);
- Burglary in the first degree as defined in ORS 164.225 (Burglary in the first degree);
- Escape in the first degree as defined in ORS 162.165 (Escape in the first degree);
- Kidnapping in the second degree as defined in ORS 163.225 (Kidnapping in the second degree);
- Kidnapping in the first degree as defined in ORS 163.235 (Kidnapping in the first degree);
- Robbery in the first degree as defined in ORS 164.415 (Robbery in the first degree);
- Any felony sexual offense in the first degree defined in this chapter;
- Compelling prostitution as defined in ORS 167.017 (Compelling prostitution); or
- Assault in the first degree, as defined in ORS 163.185 (Assault in the first degree), and the victim is under 14 years of age, or assault in the second degree, as defined in ORS 163.175 (Assault in the second degree) (1)(a) or (b), and the victim is under 14 years of age; or
- By abuse when a person, recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life, causes the death of a child under 14 years of age or a dependent person, as defined in ORS 163.205 (Criminal mistreatment in the first degree), and:
- The person has previously engaged in a pattern or practice of assault or torture of the victim or another child under 14 years of age or a dependent person; or
- The person causes the death by neglect or maltreatment.
- An accusatory instrument alleging murder by abuse under subsection (1)(c) of this section need not allege specific incidents of assault or torture.
- It is an affirmative defense to a charge of violating subsection (1)(b) of this section that the defendant:
- Was not the only participant in the underlying crime;
- Did not commit the homicidal act or in any way solicit, request, command, importune, cause or aid in the commission thereof;
- Was not armed with a dangerous or deadly weapon;
- Had no reasonable ground to believe that any other participant was armed with a dangerous or deadly weapon; and
- Had no reasonable ground to believe that any other participant intended to engage in conduct likely to result in death.
- It is an affirmative defense to a charge of violating subsection (1)(c)(B) of this section that the child or dependent person was under care or treatment solely by spiritual means pursuant to the religious beliefs or practices of the child or person or the parent or guardian of the child or person.
- A person convicted of murder, who was at least 15 years of age at the time of committing the murder, shall be punished by imprisonment for life.
- When a defendant is convicted of murder under this section, the court shall order that the defendant shall be confined for a minimum of 25 years without possibility of parole, release to post-prison supervision, release on work release or any form of temporary leave or employment at a forest or work camp.
- At any time after completion of a minimum period of confinement pursuant to paragraph (b) of this subsection, the State Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, upon the petition of a prisoner so confined, shall hold a hearing to determine if the prisoner is likely to be rehabilitated within a reasonable period of time. The sole issue is whether or not the prisoner is likely to be rehabilitated within a reasonable period of time. At the hearing the prisoner has:
- The burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence the likelihood of rehabilitation within a reasonable period of time; and
- The right, if the prisoner is without sufficient funds to employ an attorney, to be represented by legal counsel, appointed by the board, at board expense; and
- The right to a subpoena upon a showing of the general relevance and reasonable scope of the evidence sought, provided that any subpoena issued on behalf of the prisoner must be issued by the State Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision pursuant to rules adopted by the board.
- If, upon hearing all of the evidence, the board, upon a unanimous vote of all of its members, finds that the prisoner is capable of rehabilitation and that the terms of the prisoner’s confinement should be changed to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole, release to post-prison supervision or work release, it shall enter an order to that effect and the order shall convert the terms of the prisoner’s confinement to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole, release to post-prison supervision or work release and may set a release date. Otherwise, the board shall deny the relief sought in the petition.
- The board’s final order shall be accompanied by findings of fact and conclusions of law. The findings of fact shall consist of a concise statement of the underlying facts supporting the findings as to each contested issue of fact and as to each ultimate fact required to support the board’s order.
- Not less than two years after the denial of the relief sought in a petition under paragraph (c) of this subsection, the prisoner may petition again for a change in the terms of confinement. Further petitions for a change may be filed at intervals of not less than two years thereafter.
- As used in this section:
- "Assault" means to intentionally, knowingly or recklessly cause physical injury to another person. "Assault" does not include the causing of physical injury in a motor vehicle accident that occurs by reason of the reckless conduct of a defendant.
- "Neglect or maltreatment" means a violation of ORS 163.535 (Abandonment of a child), 163.545 (Child neglect in the second degree) or 163.547 (Child neglect in the first degree) or a failure to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter or medical care that is likely to endanger the health or welfare of a child under 14 years of age or a dependent person. This paragraph is not intended to replace or affect the duty or standard of care required under ORS chapter 677.
- "Pattern or practice" means one or more previous episodes.
- "Torture" means to intentionally inflict intense physical pain upon an unwilling victim as a separate objective apart from any other purpose.
[1971 c.743 §88; 1975 c.577 §1; 1979 c.2 §1; 1981 c.873 §5; 1985 c.763 §1; 1989 c.985 §1; 1993 c.664 §1; 1995 c.421 §3; 1995 c.657 §1; 1997 c.850 §2; 1999 c.782 §4; 2007 c.717 §2]161.085 Definitions with respect to culpability.
- “Act” means a bodily movement.
- “Voluntary act” means a bodily movement performed consciously and includes the conscious possession or control of property.
- “Omission” means a failure to perform an act the performance of which is required by law.
- “Conduct” means an act or omission and its accompanying mental state.
- “To act” means either to perform an act or to omit to perform an act.
- “Culpable mental state” means intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or with criminal negligence as these terms are defined in subsections (7), (8), (9) and (10) of this section.
- “Intentionally” or “with intent,” when used with respect to a result or to conduct described by a statute defining an offense, means that a person acts with a conscious objective to cause the result or to engage in the conduct so described.
- “Knowingly” or “with knowledge,” when used with respect to conduct or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense, means that a person acts with an awareness that the conduct of the person is of a nature so described or that a circumstance so described exists.
- “Recklessly,” when used with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense, means that a person is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that disregard thereof constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.
- “Criminal negligence” or “criminally negligent,” when used with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense, means that a person fails to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to be aware of it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.
[1971 c.743 §7; 1973 c.139 §2]I'm not sure the jury failed to understand their duty, I think they just did not believe that the parents lack of treatment constituted a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe. There were a number of quotes from jurors about how they believed the parents when they said that they thought the child just had a cold and was recovering.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Yeah, that is worrisome. If it weren't for the other quotes I would be tempted to assume that they ignored the actual law. Does anyone know where the quotes came from, i.e. are they part of a larger interview or from a press conference? I'd like to know if the answers were from directed questions or if this is what some of them said when giving carte blanche to discuss their findings. I've mostly only seen the snippets quoted in the AP story.
Either that or they feel like they need to try and use some false complication to explain their decision.
"Criminal homicide constitutes manslaughter in the second degree when ... a person, with criminal negligence, causes the death of a child under 14 years of age or a dependent person ... and the person causes the death by neglect or maltreatment, as defined in ORS 163.115 (Murder)." Neglect or maltreatment is so defined as, "a failure to provide adequate ... medical care that is likely to endanger the health or welfare of a child under 14 years of age or a dependent person."
To be culpable of criminal negligence, the person must "fail to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to be aware of it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation."
^ Those are the requirements for conviction of Manslaughter 2. The jury HAS ALREADY convicted the father of being "in violation of a legal duty to provide care for another person ... and intentionally or knowingly withholding necessary ... medical attention from that other person." (The requirements of being convicted of criminal mistreatment)
Now, from what I'm reading here, ALL you would need for a Manslaughter 2 conviction is the DEATH of the person due to criminal mistreatment (aka, the knowing withholding of medical attention from the other person). They've already convicted the father of knowingly withholding medical attention. The child has died. Therefore, they should have convicted him of Manslaughter 2.
I'm not a lawyer, but that seems like really obvious logic to me. Where am I wrong here?
Here's how criminal negligence is defined: "A person fails to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to be aware of it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation." It appears that he was NOT found to be guilty of this.
Here's how criminal mistreatment is defined: "The person, in violation of a legal duty to provide care for another person, or having assumed the permanent or temporary care, custody or responsibility for the supervision of another person, intentionally or knowingly withholds necessary and adequate food, physical care or medical attention from that other person." He was convicted of this.
Now it appears to me that there are TWO major differences between these definitions, as they apply to this case.
First, they are different in terms of what the accused KNOWS. Now, it seems to me that criminal mistreatment as defined here, which he was convicted of, appears to actually be MORE STRICT than criminal negligence, which he was acquitted of, in this way. For negligence, which he was not convicted of, the requirement is that he SHOULD HAVE BEEN be aware of the problem, but was not. And in criminal mistreatment, which he was convicted of, it says is that he withheld "necessary medical attention" and and did so KNOWINGLY AND INTENTIONALLY.
In other words, the Jury has ruled that he KNOWINGLY AND INTENTIONALLY withheld necessary medical attention.
Second, Negligence, which he was not convicted of, has to be a gross deviation of the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe. Mistreatment, which he was convicted of, is intentionally withholding necessary medical attention. Now, isn't intentionally withholding necessary medical attention NOT something that ANY reasonable person would do? I can't imagine any reasonable person withholding medical attention from their own child, which is what the Jury convicted of.
So, did the Jury think that a reasonable person WOULD, in some cases, withhold necessary medical attention to a child? And furthermore, the Jury believed that THIS WAS ONE OF THOSE CASES?
Point out my logic failures.
Hence the debate about whether or not there should be context-specific qualifications to the assessment of what is 'reasonable'.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
In this case, I would translate that to: a reasonable person would, upon discovering their child's illness, take whatever steps are mandated by their religion in addition to seeking medical care from trained professionals.
However, they convinced the jury that a reasonable person may not perceive the severity of the risk as requiring medical care. If your dependent develops a complication that a reasonable person would not foresee, you are not guilty of manslaughter if you did not treat the initial condition and the dependent dies.
In essence:
They did.
Rigorous Scholarship