They shoulda got the death sentence

rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
They shoulda got the death sentence

 

 

 As a mom of three, I simply don't understand how these people didn't get the same punishment that other murderers do. I've heard of people getting more time over drugs than some of these people got.

 

 

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=4550151&page=

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341574,00.htmlhttp://www.rickross.com/reference/firstborn/firstborn13.html

 

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009758878_apwafaithhealingdeath2ndldwritethru.html

If all the Christians who have called other Christians " not really a Christian " were to vanish, there'd be no Christians left.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Notice these are all older

Notice these are all older reports.

I can comment on the Oregon one as they aren't too far and there was a lot of news coverage.  Oregon's law specifically outlaws faith healing for minor children of any religious sect.  In this case dad went to jail for 16 months, mom got probation.  Not enough in my book, but I don't have control over these things.  Oregon's law was in response to this particular group of nutters as they have lost a lot of children and mothers over the years.

For the two that died of a burst appendix - man, that is torture.  My oldest son had appendicitis when he was in the sixth grade - it was his last day of school that year.  By evening it was out and thankfully before it burst.  He was in a lot of pain.  So much that he said after the operation that it hurt a lot less and he was real grateful to the doctors.

I'm with most people who want to be able to prosecute parents of minor children for at least neglect and for murder if the child dies if medical is not sought.  Once they are adults they can kill themselves if they so desire but their parents have no right to do so. 

It also pisses me off that pharmacists get a pass on prescribing birth control and the day after pills.  If you don't want to do the job, get in a different profession.

 

edit: maybe not the death penalty but maybe sterilization.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
 Oh, wow. Two months for

 Oh, wow. Two months for killing your 15-month old by prEying. 

 

How about registering something like the Church of Angels...


jimmy.williamson
Superfan
jimmy.williamson's picture
Posts: 249
Joined: 2010-08-07
User is offlineOffline
If we did this.....

Let us put the shoe on the other foot for a moment.

If we as Atheist refused the medical treatment for our children we would surely be viewed as satanic.

There are laws in some of these states that protect parents from prosecution. If we all sit back and wait on this problem to go away it will only get worst.

Check with your local state to see what their laws are. If we stand up now maybe we can save lives in the future. These maybe old cases but the problem still exists.

I can only hope that no one on this site agrees with these parents. To save the life of a child that is already here adopt a child from a Christian family…

Throughout human history as our species has faced the frighten terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are and where we are going; it has been the authority (the political, the religious, and the educational authorities) who have attempted to comfort us. By giving us order, rules, and regulation. Informing or forming in our minds their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question these authorities. THINK FOR YOURSELF…


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
I noticed in the second

I noticed in the second story that there are three more children at home. However, nothing is going to be done to protect them because the police saw no evidence of neglect. WTF is up with that? I think that there is plenty of evidence that their parents don't love them and they should be taken away so that they can live with someone who will.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


jimmy.williamson
Superfan
jimmy.williamson's picture
Posts: 249
Joined: 2010-08-07
User is offlineOffline
Again I say we should start

Again I say we should start the " Adopt A Christian Child Foundation" AACF.
With this type of neglect it's the only thing to do!

Throughout human history as our species has faced the frighten terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are and where we are going; it has been the authority (the political, the religious, and the educational authorities) who have attempted to comfort us. By giving us order, rules, and regulation. Informing or forming in our minds their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question these authorities. THINK FOR YOURSELF…


rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
 To clarify, I am hard core

 To clarify, I am hard core for the death penanlty. In other words you live what you've learned in this case. Some people surely have a different outlook on it than I do but I strongly believe that if you end a childs life, especially with them suffering, I really don't see the point of those people sitting there getting 3 hots and a cot not to mention cable tv provided by us taxpayers. Yes these are older stories but I'm sure that by now anyone who has read most of my comments knows that I am seriously the type of person who hates to see children neglected or abused.

If all the Christians who have called other Christians " not really a Christian " were to vanish, there'd be no Christians left.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Children sometimes receive

Children sometimes receive the death penalty. At least they aren't being neglected.


jimmy.williamson
Superfan
jimmy.williamson's picture
Posts: 249
Joined: 2010-08-07
User is offlineOffline
states

ALABAMA: STATUTE defines child abuse as harm or threatened harm of physical abuse, neglect, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, or emotional/mental injury against a child under the age of 18. Statute contains an exemption for religious reasons for a parent's failure to obtain medical help for the child.

 

ALASKA: Statute defines child abuse as harm or threatened harm of physical abuse, neglect, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, or emotional/mental injury of a child under the age of 18. Statute contains an exemption for religious reasons for a parent's failure to obtain medical help for the child.

 

ARIZONA: Statute defines child abuse as inflicting or allowing physical abuse, neglect, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, emotional/mental injury, or ABANDONMENT of a child under the age of 18. Statute contains an exemption for Christian Scientists or unavailability of reasonable resources for a parent's failure to obtain medical help for the child.

 

 

ARKANSAS: Statute defines child abuse as intentionally, knowingly, or negligently without cause inflicting physical abuse, neglect, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, abandonment or emotional/mental injury of a child under the age of 18. Statute contains exemptions for poverty or corporal punishment.

 

CALIFORNIA: Statute defines child abuse as inflicting by non-accidental means physical abuse, neglect, sexual abuse, or sexual exploitation of a child under the age of 18. Statute contains exemptions for religion, reasonable force, and informed medical decision.

 

COLORADO: Statute prohibits threats to a child's health and welfare due to physical abuse, neglect, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, emotional/mental injury, or abandonment. Statute contains exemptions for corporal punishment, reasonable force, religious practices, and cultural practices.

 

CONNECTICUT: Statute prohibits injuries inflicted by non-accidental means involving physical abuse, neglect, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, emotional/mental injury, or abandonment. Statute contains exemption for Christian Scientists.

 

DELAWARE: Statute prohibits injuries inflicted by non-accidental means involving physical abuse, neglect, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, emotional/mental injury, or abandonment. Statute contains exemption for religion.

 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Statute prohibits persons from inflicting and requires people to take reasonable care not to inflict injuries involving physical abuse, neglect, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, or emotional/mental injury. Statute contains exemption for poverty and religion.

 

FLORIDA: Statute prohibits willful or threatened act that harms or is likely to cause harm of physical abuse, neglect, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, abandonment, or emotional/mental injury. Statute contains exemptions for religion, poverty, or corporal punishment.

 

GEORGIA: Statute prohibits injuries inflicted by non-accidental means involving physical abuse, neglect, sexual abuse, or sexual exploitation. Statute contains exemption for religion and corporal punishment.

 

HAWAII: Statute prohibits acts or omissions resulting in the child being harmed or subject to any reasonably foreseeable, substantial risk of being harmed with physical abuse, neglect, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, or emotional/mental injury. Statute contains no exemptions.

 

IDAHO: Statute prohibits conduct or omission resulting in physical abuse, neglect, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, abandonment, or emotional/mental injury. Statute contains exemption for religion.

 

ILLINOIS: Statute prohibits persons from inflicting, causing to be inflicted, or allowing to be inflicted, or creating a substantial risk, or committing or allowing to be committed, physical abuse, neglect, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, or emotional/mental injury. Statute contains exemptions for religion, school attendance, and plan of care.

 

INDIANA: Statute prohibits act or omission resulting in physical abuse, neglect, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, abandonment, or emotional/mental injury. Statute contains exemptions for religion, prescription drugs, or corporal punishment.

 

KENTUCKY: Statute prohibits harm or threat of harm, or infliction or allowance of infliction of physical abuse, neglect, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, abandonment, or emotional/mental injury. Statute contains exemptions for religion.

 

MARYLAND: Statute prohibits harm or substantial risk of harm resulting in physical abuse, neglect, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, or emotional/mental injury. Statute contains no exemptions.

 

MICHIGAN: Statute prohibits harm or threatened harm of physical abuse, neglect, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, or emotional/mental injury. Statute contains exemptions for religion.

 

MISSISSIPPI: Statute prohibits persons from causing or allowing to be caused physical abuse, neglect, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, or emotional/mental injury. Statute contains exemption for religion and corporal punishment.

 

NEBRASKA: Statute prohibits knowingly, intentionally, or negligently causing or permitting physical abuse, neglect, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, or emotional/mental injury. Statute contains no exemptions.

 

NEW MEXICO: Statute prohibits knowingly, intentionally, or negligently causing or permitting physical abuse, neglect, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, abandonment, or emotional/mental injury. Statute contains exemption for religion.

 

NORTH DAKOTA: Statute prohibits serious harm caused by non-accidental means resulting in physical abuse, neglect, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, abandonment, or emotional/mental injury. Statute contains no exemptions.

 

OKLAHOMA: Statute prohibits harm or threat of harm resulting in physical abuse, neglect, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, abandonment, or emotional/mental injury. Statute contains exemptions for religion or corporal punishment.

 

PENNSYLVANIA: Statute prohibits recent act or failure to act resulting in physical abuse, neglect, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, or emotional/mental injury. Statute contains exemptions for religion or poverty.

 

SOUTH DAKOTA: Statute prohibits threat with substantial harm resulting in physical abuse, neglect, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, abandonment, or emotional/mental injury. Statute contains no exemptions.

 

TENNESSEE: Statute prohibits persons from committing or allowing to be committed physical abuse, neglect, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, or emotional/mental injury. Statute contains no exemptions.

 

UTAH: Statute prohibits harm or threat of harm resulting in physical abuse, neglect, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, or emotional/mental injury. Statute contains no exemptions.

 

WASHINGTON: Statute prohibits harm of health, welfare, or safety resulting from physical abuse, neglect, sexual abuse, or sexual exploitation. Statute contains exemptions for Christian Scientists, corporal punishment, or physical DISABILITY.

Throughout human history as our species has faced the frighten terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are and where we are going; it has been the authority (the political, the religious, and the educational authorities) who have attempted to comfort us. By giving us order, rules, and regulation. Informing or forming in our minds their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question these authorities. THINK FOR YOURSELF…


jimmy.williamson
Superfan
jimmy.williamson's picture
Posts: 249
Joined: 2010-08-07
User is offlineOffline
Some states do have the "no

Some states do have the "no exemptions" in their statutes; however most allow such nonsense to take place. As far as that goes I feel these states endorse such behavior.

If you are in a wreck, or just to ill to comprehend and you end up in the hospital they will treat you to the hilt. Now if a child under the age of 18 and thus unable to comprehend it must be the states responsibility to mandate treatment.

This also goes into Health care debate. If as tax payer we supply these people with health care, then availability can no longer be used as a way out. 

Lets get real, if it takes laws to tell a person to treat their children then we are worse off than I thought...

Throughout human history as our species has faced the frighten terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are and where we are going; it has been the authority (the political, the religious, and the educational authorities) who have attempted to comfort us. By giving us order, rules, and regulation. Informing or forming in our minds their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question these authorities. THINK FOR YOURSELF…


rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
jimmy.williamson wrote: If

jimmy.williamson wrote:

 

If you are in a wreck, or just to ill to comprehend and you end up in the hospital they will treat you to the hilt. Now if a child under the age of 18 and thus unable to comprehend it must be the states responsibility to mandate treatment.

 The kicker is that if you are under 18 some states (Alabama) will not treat until the parents are contacted. In my case a car accident that left my knee cap hanging out of my leg and my front teeth in my nasal cavity. I layed in the er on a stretcher waiting for them to get in touch with my mom or dad and they weren't going to do anything until I told them to call my mom. My dad had custody and was mad because I was out after curfew and told them he didn't have a daughter. I will say even though my mom didn't have custody she told them to go ahead and they charged it to my dad and he later sued my friend. I thought the whole thing was rediculous because I was in shock not to mention diabetic.

If all the Christians who have called other Christians " not really a Christian " were to vanish, there'd be no Christians left.


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
Profound stupidity !=

Profound stupidity != malice.

Despite how harmful idiocy is, it isn't necessarily indicative of malice, and courts look largely at intent for sentencing.

 

They could get Involuntary manslaughter, reckless endangerment, and a number of other convictions- but they won't and couldn't in our legal system get a murder charge unless we can demonstrate that they knew their children would die and intended it.

 

 

If they admitted that they knew that by doing this there was a good chance of "god choosing taking them home", and admitted that medical care would interfere and prevent their god's choice in the matter (or lessen it somehow), that could be enough to establish intent- they intended for their children to die if they deliberately chose something that they knew would make the taking of those lives by their god easier.

If, though, they insisted that they believed that proper medical care would not have hampered their god in taking their children's lives in any way if it was 'their time to go', then any intent would be hard to demonstrate.

 

If the prosecution got them on the stand (if they testified) and worked them just right, it could be possible to show the former if they had even the most remote inclination to believing that.

It would still be pretty tricky to argue for murder, though.


jimmy.williamson
Superfan
jimmy.williamson's picture
Posts: 249
Joined: 2010-08-07
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote:Profound

Blake wrote:

Profound stupidity != malice.

Despite how harmful idiocy is, it isn't necessarily indicative of malice, and courts look largely at intent for sentencing.

 

They could get Involuntary manslaughter, reckless endangerment, and a number of other convictions- but they won't and couldn't in our legal system get a murder charge unless we can demonstrate that they knew their children would die and intended it.

 

 

If they admitted that they knew that by doing this there was a good chance of "god choosing taking them home", and admitted that medical care would interfere and prevent their god's choice in the matter (or lessen it somehow), that could be enough to establish intent- they intended for their children to die if they deliberately chose something that they knew would make the taking of those lives by their god easier.

If, though, they insisted that they believed that proper medical care would not have hampered their god in taking their children's lives in any way if it was 'their time to go', then any intent would be hard to demonstrate.

 

If the prosecution got them on the stand (if they testified) and worked them just right, it could be possible to show the former if they had even the most remote inclination to believing that.

It would still be pretty tricky to argue for murder, though.

I understand that manslaughter is the best we can hope for. The point is that states protect the right to refuse medical care for minors. Only if done in a religious setting.

Now I propose that we put penalty's in place for those actions. Make it known to the public that using these "faith healers" instead of proper medical treatment, will get you time behind bars. Also it should be known that if a family is found doing this that all of the children in the home will be taken into protective custody. Thing is that most of the "pew Christians" would agree. There is just a handful of these confused individuals out there.

If public health care gets pasted, and I mean the one that provides health care to all the people in the US. Then it should be written in that law. Take the states out of it. Make it a federal matter not a local matter.

Give one or two family's ten years in federal prison for there lack of treatment for there children, and make the point.

We can sit on this forum day after day debating gene's, and space theory. This is something that we can do!

Anyone with the know how to get a petition started do so and if all on this forum sign, and pass it to other forums to sign. We may make a difference. Anyone jump in with the know how...

As I said most of the Christians I know would sign it. That should make it a walk in the park right.

Throughout human history as our species has faced the frighten terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are and where we are going; it has been the authority (the political, the religious, and the educational authorities) who have attempted to comfort us. By giving us order, rules, and regulation. Informing or forming in our minds their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question these authorities. THINK FOR YOURSELF…


Ken G.
Bronze Member
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
rebecca.williamson wrote:they shoulda got the Death Sentence

    When I was reading the article about this wacky faith-healing case,it reminded me of my neighbors from my last residence.One day I was outside weeding I hear this young mother screaming "you are not taking my baby" now when I heard this,I stopped what I was doing to hear more.The Father of the baby was walking down his steps with the baby in his arms and was taking the baby to a doctor,but the Mother keep trying to stop him.Now I have been told by other neighbors that this young couple were extremely religious - he was a Catholic kid that went to school with my brother (Cardinal Daugherty) a catholic high school. ( I was told by a nun that they wouldn't want me cause I asked to many questions,thank goodness I thought to my self.That is where you ask questions, in SCHOOL !!! ) Anyway --- back to the story.And she is a mormon or something like that ? I heard that her father died from some minor infection,cause he didn't go to the doctor due to his belief. How many people will die this year due to their belief system ? I think it was Christopher Hitchens book that says it all " Religion poisons EVERYTHING.   

Signature ? How ?


rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
 This was my point and

 This was my point and thank you. It does poison everything it seems. I know that maybe I should have picked a better name for this thread but honestly it was all I could think about when I was reading these stories. The one who was diabetic I can relate with because I am diabetic myself. I know what hell that kid went through and I can without a doubt say that girl died a miserable death. Her mother is a piece of shit in my book to let her own child suffer like that. At some point you would think common sense would kick in and she would have thought to herself hey this is my baby!

I also know that there will never be a law passed to give these idiots the death penalty but they should get way more time than what they did. I think it should be considered at least manslaughter because they do have the brains I would think to understand their child may actually die if they don't seek medical attention. My only hope is that when they were in jail they got the crap beat out of them daily.

If all the Christians who have called other Christians " not really a Christian " were to vanish, there'd be no Christians left.


premeet01245 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
rebecca.williamson

rebecca.williamson wrote:

 

 

 As a mom of three, I simply don't understand how these people didn't get the same punishment that other murderers do. I've heard of people getting more time over drugs than some of these people got.

 

 

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=4550151&page=

 

 

 

I am here to know more about it.


 


jimmy.williamson
Superfan
jimmy.williamson's picture
Posts: 249
Joined: 2010-08-07
User is offlineOffline
What would you like to know?

What would you like to know?


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote:Profound

Blake wrote:

Profound stupidity != malice.

Despite how harmful idiocy is, it isn't necessarily indicative of malice, and courts look largely at intent for sentencing.

 

They could get Involuntary manslaughter, reckless endangerment, and a number of other convictions- but they won't and couldn't in our legal system get a murder charge unless we can demonstrate that they knew their children would die and intended it.

 

 

If they admitted that they knew that by doing this there was a good chance of "god choosing taking them home", and admitted that medical care would interfere and prevent their god's choice in the matter (or lessen it somehow), that could be enough to establish intent- they intended for their children to die if they deliberately chose something that they knew would make the taking of those lives by their god easier.

If, though, they insisted that they believed that proper medical care would not have hampered their god in taking their children's lives in any way if it was 'their time to go', then any intent would be hard to demonstrate.

 

If the prosecution got them on the stand (if they testified) and worked them just right, it could be possible to show the former if they had even the most remote inclination to believing that.

It would still be pretty tricky to argue for murder, though.

Unless there is a "reckless disregard" clause they can work.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin