Faith healers avoid jail after allowing son to die

harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3310
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Faith healers avoid jail after allowing son to die

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2205306/Russel-Brandi-Bellew-Faith-healer-parents-avoid-jail-Austin-Sprout-16-dies.html

Faith healer parents avoid jail after son, 16, dies in horrible pain after they tried to 'pray away' his burst appendix
 

 

By Daily Mail Reporter

Two parents have avoided jail after admitting they let their son, 16, die in horrible agony because they chose to 'pray away' his burst appendix and refused to take him to the hospital.

Russel and Brandi Bellew, age 39 and 36, of Creswell, Oregon, pleaded guilty to criminally negligent homicide on Tuesday and were sentenced to five years probation after reaching a plea deal with prosecutors.

The couple, who had seven children before Austin Sprout's death, are members of the General Assembly and the Church of the First Born in nearby Pleasant Hill, which shuns modern medicine and teaches parishioners that faith healing and prayer will cure disease


 

 

(These people should be in jail. I wonder if the courts would have shown any leniency had it not been because of "religious reasons" ? What amazes me is that the social worker states that she believes the other six children are "safe" in that home. WHAT ? Hopefully, the courts that removed these children will feel otherwise. Can you imagine dying of a burst appendix in excruciating agony while your parents just stand by and let it happen ?)

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4476
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:(These

harleysportster wrote:

(These people should be in jail. I wonder if the courts would have shown any leniency had it not been because of "religious reasons" ? What amazes me is that the social worker states that she believes the other six children are "safe" in that home. WHAT ? Hopefully, the courts that removed these children will feel otherwise. Can you imagine dying of a burst appendix in excruciating agony while your parents just stand by and let it happen ?)

 

As long as they don't have any illnesses the other kids probably are safe. I am always hesitant to allow the government to take kids away from their parents because I imagine if I had kids and the government tried to take them away that is the point where I start killing people. I have also heard of situations where kids have cancer and decide they do not want treatment and I think the parents are in the best position to determine whether or not the kid is old enough to make that decision. For example, I can imagine that a 16 year old might be mature enough to make that decision. In that type of situation I would be clearly against the government interfering.

In this particular situation I can see cause for the government interfering given that it was an easily treatable problem, and no I can't imagine how any parent can just sit there and let it happen. The damage is done now, I don't see how throwing them in jail does any good for anyone other than from a strictly vengeance standpoint. They are not likely to be a danger to anyone in the future. While I wouldn't be opposed to throwing them in jail for a few years, if the government is going to err I prefer they err on the side of non-interference rather than interfering too much. 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10593
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"I am always hesitant to

"I am always hesitant to allow the government to take kids away from their parents because I imagine if I had kids and the government tried to take them away that is the point where I start killing people."

QFT on that.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3328
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:I am

Beyond Saving wrote:

I am always hesitant to allow the government to take kids away from their parents because I imagine if I had kids and the government tried to take them away that is the point where I start killing people.

well, obviously they've passed that point, because they've already killed one person...

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is onlineOnline
 The important point is

 

The important point is there a double standard? If the parents had been non-religous and done this, would they have had other kids taken away? Did they get a get out of jail card just for being religious?

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3310
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote: The important

EXC wrote:

 

The important point is there a double standard? If the parents had been non-religous and done this, would they have had other kids taken away? Did they get a get out of jail card just for being religious?

That's kind of what I was hitting at.

If two atheist parents had refused to take their child to the hospital it would have been considered neglect, abuse and murder.

But, since religion played a part here, it seemed a lesser sentence was imposed.

I agree with the above statements about government intervention into parenting, but a parent that would let a child die that could have been saved is obviously not a fit parent in my eyes. Be they atheist or christian.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
My oldest son had his

My oldest son had his appendix removed at the end of 6th grade.  And it is not straight forward.  The doctor told me that in children, an inflamed appendix is not as clear a diagnosis as in an adult.  Mind you, I think the doctor was full of shit and was highly pissed that we were made to wait all day in the emergency waiting room to see if it would get worse or better.  It got worse.  And so, my son had an appendectomy.  Being a boy, he told me this was great, he wouldn't have to have it removed when he became an astronaut.

But no, it is not pain free, and I can not see how a parent could allow this.  These nutters live not too far from me and every time I see one of these cases, I see red.  Kill yourself with neglect if you want, but even an 18 year old - supposedly an adult - is not.  People generally do not become capable of adult decisions until about age 25.  Take your children to the doctor, get immunizations, get medical care, AND DON'T LET THEM DIE IN AGONY BECAUSE OF YOUR STUPID RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

Sorry, but I think it is off my chest now.  Next time, I'll tell you how I really feel.

 

-- 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.


HumanVuvuzela
atheistSilver Member
HumanVuvuzela's picture
Posts: 93
Joined: 2011-04-24
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:EXC

harleysportster wrote:

EXC wrote:

 

The important point is there a double standard? If the parents had been non-religous and done this, would they have had other kids taken away? Did they get a get out of jail card just for being religious?

That's kind of what I was hitting at.

If two atheist parents had refused to take their child to the hospital it would have been considered neglect, abuse and murder.

But, since religion played a part here, it seemed a lesser sentence was imposed.

I agree with the above statements about government intervention into parenting, but a parent that would let a child die that could have been saved is obviously not a fit parent in my eyes. Be they atheist or christian.

Agree with both. And agree that throwing them in jail (or "putting a bullet in their heads", as was the common response on the online news forum I read this on earlier today...) is unlikely to have any realistic chance of changing anything. But what really gets me about this is the blind obedience with which these idiots will hold on to their beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

YOUR SON JUST DIED.

PRAYING TO GOD DID NOT SAVE HIM.

APPENDICITIS NEEDS URGENT MEDICAL ATTENTION, NOT PRAYER. 

Is there any chance of them reconsidering their opinion on faith healing?

What's the bet that if another of their children complained of excruciating pain in the lower right of their abdomen that they would be on their knees asking god to intervene again? How many of their children would need to suffer the same slow, painful death before the parents might reconsider their view of conventional medicine? And what might the view of the courts be if they were recidivists? 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13591
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

harleysportster wrote:

(These people should be in jail. I wonder if the courts would have shown any leniency had it not been because of "religious reasons" ? What amazes me is that the social worker states that she believes the other six children are "safe" in that home. WHAT ? Hopefully, the courts that removed these children will feel otherwise. Can you imagine dying of a burst appendix in excruciating agony while your parents just stand by and let it happen ?)

 

As long as they don't have any illnesses the other kids probably are safe. I am always hesitant to allow the government to take kids away from their parents because I imagine if I had kids and the government tried to take them away that is the point where I start killing people. I have also heard of situations where kids have cancer and decide they do not want treatment and I think the parents are in the best position to determine whether or not the kid is old enough to make that decision. For example, I can imagine that a 16 year old might be mature enough to make that decision. In that type of situation I would be clearly against the government interfering.

In this particular situation I can see cause for the government interfering given that it was an easily treatable problem, and no I can't imagine how any parent can just sit there and let it happen. The damage is done now, I don't see how throwing them in jail does any good for anyone other than from a strictly vengeance standpoint. They are not likely to be a danger to anyone in the future. While I wouldn't be opposed to throwing them in jail for a few years, if the government is going to err I prefer they err on the side of non-interference rather than interfering too much. 

Are you nuts? They should be thrown in jail. It is one thing to have rights over your children, but it is flat out abuse to let them die when clearly the death was preventable. Otherwise even beating the shit out of your kid, beyond mere spanking, should be legal beause you wouldn't want to "spare the rod".

There certainly should be parental rights to raise your kid as you see fit. And I agree that no parent wants government in complete control of their kids life. But we are not talking about teaching a religion or giving a spakinging here. We are talking about a needless death because of selfish parents who cared more about their faith than the health of their child. People all over the world allow their children to die and or murder them because of stupidity and abuse.

Ayaan Hersi Ali can attest to what religion did to her even without dying. She had no rights growing up, her vagina was needlessly mutilated and she was forced into a pre aranged marriage. I am quite sure she would have wanted back then someone stepping in and stoping it.

16 certainly is an age where someone can think for themselves, but realistically if this teen went along with it, it wouldn't have been because of choice, but  long termindoctrination. And if the doctors had said "he is under age" fuck you, maybe if he had survived he might have gotten to the point of saying "what the fuck was I thinking" and thanked the doctors from his and his parents foolishness and stupidity.

To me the ability to save this person from their own stupidity is no different than saving a jumper on a sky scraper.

Out of all the Libertarain garbage you spew on economics, this makes that look liberal. Way to treat children like property.Children are not property, they are individual human beings. While we as a society and those who are parents have the right to raise them as they see fit, we don't have the right to allow them to die needlessly when it is totally preventable. It was not like he was dying from terminal cancer or was brain dead.

If religion gets people killed, and I am sure you don't disagree with that, then this has to serve as a n especially needless death based on religion. Throw their asses in jail!

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13591
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:My oldest son had

cj wrote:

My oldest son had his appendix removed at the end of 6th grade.  And it is not straight forward.  The doctor told me that in children, an inflamed appendix is not as clear a diagnosis as in an adult.  Mind you, I think the doctor was full of shit and was highly pissed that we were made to wait all day in the emergency waiting room to see if it would get worse or better.  It got worse.  And so, my son had an appendectomy.  Being a boy, he told me this was great, he wouldn't have to have it removed when he became an astronaut.

But no, it is not pain free, and I can not see how a parent could allow this.  These nutters live not too far from me and every time I see one of these cases, I see red.  Kill yourself with neglect if you want, but even an 18 year old - supposedly an adult - is not.  People generally do not become capable of adult decisions until about age 25.  Take your children to the doctor, get immunizations, get medical care, AND DON'T LET THEM DIE IN AGONY BECAUSE OF YOUR STUPID RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

Sorry, but I think it is off my chest now.  Next time, I'll tell you how I really feel.

 

Damned right!

I can tell you, although I love my mom, growing up, both my mom and my dad(my dad died when I was 13) both of them, not understanding that they were physically abusing me(would have thought of it as tough love), I didnt. Punching and slapping hurt me, both physically and emotionally and did not make me want to conform. Now some kids do respond to fear, but I hated it and resented it and if they had only learned to respond to conflicts with conflict resolution skills rather than beat me into submission, I would have grown up with far less emotional baggage that I am even today still dealing with.

Again, I am an adult now and I am well over the past and know that they did not know any better even as parents and I do not hold any grudges to my mom today, I only wish it had been different. But I can say if someone had witnessed the punching and slapping I would have felt a sense of relief if someone had stepped in. And more often than not my mom's punching and slapping me merely amounted to that she simply didn't want to deal with me at the time.

 

It is hard as a kid when you are already sensitive, and have no sense as a kid of psychology, that I didn't have to let their baggage be mine, to have someone physically hit you. I did grow up as a kid and a teen thinking I was a misfit and an outsider and could never live up to their standards. That carried over to school. It took me a long time to see myself as an individual and worthy of my own merits and my sense of self worth and dignity was severly damaged and it took me forever to slowly overcome that.

You should have the right to raise your kid as you see fit, but you don't have to physically terrorize them or emotionally terrorize them. It does fuck up a kid mentally.

But this goes way beyond parenting and is just plain stupidity and ignorance and that stupidity and ignorance got this boy needlessly killed.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4476
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Beyond Saving

Brian37 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

harleysportster wrote:

(These people should be in jail. I wonder if the courts would have shown any leniency had it not been because of "religious reasons" ? What amazes me is that the social worker states that she believes the other six children are "safe" in that home. WHAT ? Hopefully, the courts that removed these children will feel otherwise. Can you imagine dying of a burst appendix in excruciating agony while your parents just stand by and let it happen ?)

 

As long as they don't have any illnesses the other kids probably are safe. I am always hesitant to allow the government to take kids away from their parents because I imagine if I had kids and the government tried to take them away that is the point where I start killing people. I have also heard of situations where kids have cancer and decide they do not want treatment and I think the parents are in the best position to determine whether or not the kid is old enough to make that decision. For example, I can imagine that a 16 year old might be mature enough to make that decision. In that type of situation I would be clearly against the government interfering.

In this particular situation I can see cause for the government interfering given that it was an easily treatable problem, and no I can't imagine how any parent can just sit there and let it happen. The damage is done now, I don't see how throwing them in jail does any good for anyone other than from a strictly vengeance standpoint. They are not likely to be a danger to anyone in the future. While I wouldn't be opposed to throwing them in jail for a few years, if the government is going to err I prefer they err on the side of non-interference rather than interfering too much. 

Are you nuts? They should be thrown in jail. It is one thing to have rights over your children, but it is flat out abuse to let them die when clearly the death was preventable. Otherwise even beating the shit out of your kid, beyond mere spanking, should be legal beause you wouldn't want to "spare the rod".

There certainly should be parental rights to raise your kid as you see fit. And I agree that no parent wants government in complete control of their kids life. But we are not talking about teaching a religion or giving a spakinging here. We are talking about a needless death because of selfish parents who cared more about their faith than the health of their child. People all over the world allow their children to die and or murder them because of stupidity and abuse.

Ayaan Hersi Ali can attest to what religion did to her even without dying. She had no rights growing up, her vagina was needlessly mutilated and she was forced into a pre aranged marriage. I am quite sure she would have wanted back then someone stepping in and stoping it.

16 certainly is an age where someone can think for themselves, but realistically if this teen went along with it, it wouldn't have been because of choice, but  long termindoctrination. And if the doctors had said "he is under age" fuck you, maybe if he had survived he might have gotten to the point of saying "what the fuck was I thinking" and thanked the doctors from his and his parents foolishness and stupidity.

To me the ability to save this person from their own stupidity is no different than saving a jumper on a sky scraper.

Out of all the Libertarain garbage you spew on economics, this makes that look liberal. Way to treat children like property.Children are not property, they are individual human beings. While we as a society and those who are parents have the right to raise them as they see fit, we don't have the right to allow them to die needlessly when it is totally preventable. It was not like he was dying from terminal cancer or was brain dead.

If religion gets people killed, and I am sure you don't disagree with that, then this has to serve as a n especially needless death based on religion. Throw their asses in jail!

 

 

People make decisions based on long term indoctrination well into adulthood. I've known grandparents who make decisions based on long term indoctrination. As I said, in this particular case I can see a strong reason for government intervention before the kid died. Now the kid is dead and there is nothing you can do about it. It is too late and no matter what you do to the parents it isn't going to make anything better, so in that sense I fail to have any outrage at the courts deciding not to throw them in jail. Like I said, I don't really have any problem if the government did decide to throw them in jail, but I am also not outraged enough to pick up the proverbial pitchfork and demand punishment for the sake of vengeance. Although, I can understand why some people like Harley & CJ want to, I just don't have the same emotional response.

 

As for people jumping off of skyscrapers, I see no reason to worry about stopping them unless there is a risk of them landing on and hurting someone else. Once the way is cleared, go ahead and jump.  

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3328
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Like I

Beyond Saving wrote:
Like I said, I don't really have any problem if the government did decide to throw them in jail, but I am also not outraged enough to pick up the proverbial pitchfork and demand punishment for the sake of vengeance.

i don't think anyone here is arguing for vengeance.  i know i'm not.  i think the main concern is the safety of the remaining children.  every parent makes mistakes and acts irrationally, and i personally think our modern system of child protective services is hysterical and fucking scray, especially for the fact that they have their own system of due process and even if a court exonerates a parent of wrongdoing that is no guarantee they'll get their kids back.  personally, i'm glad i won't be raising my son in the US.

that being said, when it's clear that parents have admittedly watched their child die slowly and painfully for no fucking reason other than religion, those parents at least deserve to be subjected to hardcore supervision.  i am all about parental responsibility and keeping family matters within the family.  i also believe that most governmental parenting through legislation happens because parents themselves have no fucking backbones anymore.  but once you wittingly let your child die, that's first-degree manslaughter at the very least, and thus your right to parent, among other rights, is forfeit.

 

 

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10593
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"when it's clear that

"when it's clear that parents have admittedly watched their child die slowly and painfully for no fucking reason other than religion, those parents at least deserve to be subjected to hardcore supervision.  i am all about parental responsibility and keeping family matters within the family.  i also believe that most governmental parenting through legislation happens because parents themselves have no fucking backbones anymore.  but once you wittingly let your child die, that's first-degree manslaughter at the very least, and thus your right to parent, among other rights, is forfeit."

I couldn't agree more.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is onlineOnline
Vastet wrote:"when it's

Vastet wrote:
"when it's clear that parents have admittedly watched their child die slowly and painfully for no fucking reason other than religion, those parents at least deserve to be subjected to hardcore supervision.  i am all about parental responsibility and keeping family matters within the family.  i also believe that most governmental parenting through legislation happens because parents themselves have no fucking backbones anymore.  but once you wittingly let your child die, that's first-degree manslaughter at the very least, and thus your right to parent, among other rights, is forfeit." I couldn't agree more.

Yes it's no big deal if they take a few of you kids away. Go ahead and have as many more as one pleases. Then stick the rest of society with the bill.

In the case of religious parents, they could always claim instanity since to be convicted of manslaughter you have to know your actions would could lead to death, the church convinced them otherwise. In a normal world, the parents should be able to sue their church for making false claims about their product(prayers are answered). But society still gives religious business exemption from the laws everyone else must live by.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10593
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
So what do we do when a 14

So what do we do when a 14 year old gets pregnant by a 14 year old pray tell? You think you can legislate sex and anyone will obey? lol

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3328
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote: Yes it's no big

EXC wrote:

 

Yes it's no big deal if they take a few of you kids away. Go ahead and have as many more as one pleases. Then stick the rest of society with the bill.

 

in this case, society absolutely should get "stuck" with the bill, because a child alive and not dead is worth any fucking tax hike, and trumps any ideology.

unless of course you want to push for sterilization in such cases, in which case you got me right behind you, but realistically, it ain't gonna happen.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Vastet wrote:"when

EXC wrote:

Vastet wrote:
"when it's clear that parents have admittedly watched their child die slowly and painfully for no fucking reason other than religion, those parents at least deserve to be subjected to hardcore supervision.  i am all about parental responsibility and keeping family matters within the family.  i also believe that most governmental parenting through legislation happens because parents themselves have no fucking backbones anymore.  but once you wittingly let your child die, that's first-degree manslaughter at the very least, and thus your right to parent, among other rights, is forfeit." I couldn't agree more.

Yes it's no big deal if they take a few of you kids away. Go ahead and have as many more as one pleases. Then stick the rest of society with the bill.

In the case of religious parents, they could always claim instanity since to be convicted of manslaughter you have to know your actions would could lead to death, the church convinced them otherwise. In a normal world, the parents should be able to sue their church for making false claims about their product(prayers are answered). But society still gives religious business exemption from the laws everyone else must live by.

So if this was a religionist of a high socioeconomic class you'd be OK with it? "Go on and kill the kid! We'll let you make more and not tell you that killing them is a bad thing because you're rich and we like your religion!"

"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


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4476
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Beyond Saving

iwbiek wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
Like I said, I don't really have any problem if the government did decide to throw them in jail, but I am also not outraged enough to pick up the proverbial pitchfork and demand punishment for the sake of vengeance.

i don't think anyone here is arguing for vengeance.  i know i'm not.  i think the main concern is the safety of the remaining children.  every parent makes mistakes and acts irrationally, and i personally think our modern system of child protective services is hysterical and fucking scray, especially for the fact that they have their own system of due process and even if a court exonerates a parent of wrongdoing that is no guarantee they'll get their kids back.  personally, i'm glad i won't be raising my son in the US.

that being said, when it's clear that parents have admittedly watched their child die slowly and painfully for no fucking reason other than religion, those parents at least deserve to be subjected to hardcore supervision.  i am all about parental responsibility and keeping family matters within the family.  i also believe that most governmental parenting through legislation happens because parents themselves have no fucking backbones anymore.  but once you wittingly let your child die, that's first-degree manslaughter at the very least, and thus your right to parent, among other rights, is forfeit.

I agree that the safety (physical and mental) of the remaining children is the most important thing. I would assume that as part of the plea deal there is some requirement that child protective services (or whatever the UK equivalent is) will have some level of supervision and if one of the other children is in need of medical care I would hope that they would interfere.

Update:

just rechecked the link and they have an update to the story

http://www.registerguard.com/web/news/28770072-57/bellews-church-death-hasselman-sprout.html.csp

Quote:

 

Had the couple been convicted of manslaughter, they each would have faced a mandatory minimum prison sentence of six years and three months. They were instead placed on probation after being allowed to plead guilty to the less-serious felony charge of criminally negligent homicide.

 

The Bellews declined to offer any statement regarding Sprout’s death when given the opportunity in court.

 

About 40 of their supporters attended the hearing. When it ended, the couple — who had been barred by court officials from contacting each other during the past seven months — locked in a long embrace. By that time, many onlookers had tears in their eyes.

 

Brandi Bellew, 36, and her 40-year-old husband each spent four days in jail following their arrests. Family members bailed them out, but a jail release agreement ordered them to live apart and not speak to each other until the criminal matter played out in court.

 

The Bellews have been allowed in recent months to take turns caring for their surviving children, under a court-approved arrangement that required them to closely monitor the youngsters’ health needs while being supervised by a state-appointed “safety service provider.”

 

The children — the youngest of whom is a toddler, the oldest 17 — became wards of the state in April, although they have been living in their home with their mother. A judge will decide whether the Bellews may regain full custody of the children.

 

The Bellews have “cooperated completely” with child welfare workers from the state Department of Human Services, who felt it would have been “detrimental to the children’s welfare” if the couple had been sentenced to jail in connection with Sprout’s death, Hasselman said.

 

I have no problem with that and think it is probably a preferable route to throwing both parents in jail for 6 years and having the kids raised by foster parents. I also think there is absolutely no evidence this family was treated differently in the courts than an atheist family would have been in similar circumstances as some have suggested. These kinds of situations can't really be legislated at a macro level because they are all unique and I support giving the courts a lot of discretion to decide on the specifics of each situation. Based on what little I know of the situation (just these two news articles) I have no issue with the court's decision. 

 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:The

Beyond Saving wrote:
The damage is done now, I don't see how throwing them in jail does any good for anyone other than from a strictly vengeance standpoint.

Right, so if the serial-rapist gets paralyzed from the waist down in an accident, we shouldn't throw him in prison since he already did the damage and he can't ever do it again, brilliant. Ever heard of deterrence?


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4476
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:Beyond Saving

Manageri wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
The damage is done now, I don't see how throwing them in jail does any good for anyone other than from a strictly vengeance standpoint.

Right, so if the serial-rapist gets paralyzed from the waist down in an accident, we shouldn't throw him in prison since he already did the damage and he can't ever do it again, brilliant. Ever heard of deterrence?

Sure, if a serial rapist happens to get paralyzed (or any criminal) to the point they are physically incapable of committing any crime I have no problem releasing them.

Do you have any evidence that prison works as a form of deterrence? Most of the evidence I have seen suggests that a person who serves a short prison sentence is more likely to commit other crimes upon release than one who doesn't serve any sentence. Small time criminals get connections with serious criminals, learn new things, and people naturally adopt the attitudes of people they associate with on a daily basis. Add in that after five years in jail you can have serious problems reintegrating with society, getting a job, a lot of your friends won't want to associate with you etc. and the temptation to turn to crime can be high. Then in this case you have 5 years of kids growing up without their parents, probably in a foster home. Which when you look at the statistics, greatly increases the chances of them having more issues which may lead to a life of crime. 

Admittedly I have not looked into the topic in the last several years so perhaps there is new research I am not aware of. But from what I saw in the past the idea that prison sentences are effective at deterring anything has little to no factual support. I think jail should be used solely as a means of separating dangerous people from society and our legal system is in need of a serious overhaul in the way we deal with minor offenders.  

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3310
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

Admittedly I have not looked into the topic in the last several years so perhaps there is new research I am not aware of. But from what I saw in the past the idea that prison sentences are effective at deterring anything has little to no factual support. I think jail should be used solely as a means of separating dangerous people from society and our legal system is in need of a serious overhaul in the way we deal with minor offenders.  

I agree about the serious overhaul of the way that we deal with minor offenders.

People in prison for drugs and prostitution being the first example that crosses my mind. The likelihood of drug dealers and such re-offending is likely because there is too much money to be made in it.

I don't know if prison would act as a deterrant for sociopathic people or not.

I don't think the unfit couple in question here could be labeled as sociopathic. Just delusional to the point of being a danger to their children.

I admit, I have no evidence that an atheist couple would have received a lesser sentence. I am just basing that off of the idea, that I think ordinary people who had allowed an incident like this to happen, who had no excuse for the behavior other than neglect or indifference, would have probably had the system come down hard on them.

I could be an ass here to theists and just state that Atheist couples would not do something like this, but I guess that is a bit of a "No True Scotsman" if I said that.

But, I guess unless I can cite a case where an Atheist couple allowed this to happen, in the same state, under the same jurisdiction, then I am pretty much left with idle speculation.

I guess it just pisses me off that religious practices like this exist.

But, I see little or no solution to that problem, other than to keep spreading as much scorn and ridicule for it as possibly can be spread.

Who knows, maybe some of the fellow teenagers that knew this boy, if they get sick, will say : "Fuck this, I am calling an ambulance on myself."

We can only hope.

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
They didn't kill their child

They didn't kill their child because they wanted to commit murder. They killed their child because they are stupid hillbillies. Other than retribution there doesn't seem to be much reason to punish the parents at this point or anything positive that can come from it. Punishing them severely may make the situation worse.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Manageri

Beyond Saving wrote:

Manageri wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
The damage is done now, I don't see how throwing them in jail does any good for anyone other than from a strictly vengeance standpoint.

Right, so if the serial-rapist gets paralyzed from the waist down in an accident, we shouldn't throw him in prison since he already did the damage and he can't ever do it again, brilliant. Ever heard of deterrence?

Sure, if a serial rapist happens to get paralyzed (or any criminal) to the point they are physically incapable of committing any crime I have no problem releasing them.

"Any" crime wasn't the question, repeating their particular crime was. If you let assholes abuse their kids and then let them face no consequences as long as they are, for whatever reason, not in a position to repeat the same crime, then similarly inclined assholes have no reason not to abuse their kid as well since they know they will also not have to face any consequences. If I'm a fundie fuck-knuckle who has a child and I see my neighbor get released based on your logic, then I have no reason to take my child to a doctor when he/she gets seriously sick, I can just keep praying and if the kid dies, everything's alright because I only had one kid so I can't do the same shit again and therefore I'll be released.

If, on the other hand, people like you and the idiots in charge atm don't decide the policy, and instead we punish assholes for being assholes regardless of their ability to be an asshole again, all of a sudden I know that if I let my kid die from an easily treatable illness then I'm gonna be looking at some serious jail time, and all of a sudden I have all kinds of reasons to take my kid to a doctor.

Quote:
Do you have any evidence that prison works as a form of deterrence? Most of the evidence I have seen suggests that a person who serves a short prison sentence is more likely to commit other crimes upon release than one who doesn't serve any sentence.

Deterrence is primarily there so people don't commit crimes in the first place. The majority of people (even in your country which throws tons of people in jail for ridicilous shit that shouldn't even be a crime) never see the inside of a prison. I drive past some of those fucking camera thingies on the side of the road every day that takes a picture if you're speeding so the cops can send you a ticket, and I alter my speed if necessary and so does everyone else, and that's just a small ticket instead of prison time so to argue deterrence has no effect on behaviour is ludicrous and you know it.

Quote:
I think jail should be used solely as a means of separating dangerous people from society and our legal system is in need of a serious overhaul in the way we deal with minor offenders.  

Yes, I'm sure we could find more productive ways to punish people (more productive for themselves and society both), and only separate the irredeemable menaces from society completely. Too bad the moronic masses would of course see any such reformation as coddling the criminals and shout it down even if it would actually benefit them. Retards will be retards and such.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10593
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:Beyond Saving

Manageri wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
The damage is done now, I don't see how throwing them in jail does any good for anyone other than from a strictly vengeance standpoint.

Right, so if the serial-rapist gets paralyzed from the waist down in an accident, we shouldn't throw him in prison since he already did the damage and he can't ever do it again, brilliant. Ever heard of deterrence?

Deterrence via punishment is a proven failed strategy.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Manageri

Vastet wrote:
Manageri wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
The damage is done now, I don't see how throwing them in jail does any good for anyone other than from a strictly vengeance standpoint.

Right, so if the serial-rapist gets paralyzed from the waist down in an accident, we shouldn't throw him in prison since he already did the damage and he can't ever do it again, brilliant. Ever heard of deterrence?

Deterrence via punishment is a proven failed strategy.

Deterrence via nothing isn't much better

"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


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10593
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Psychology shows that

Psychology shows that deterrence doesn't work on the majority at all. It's part of why spanking is now outlawed. Positive reinforcement works. Negative reinforcement just creates pissed off people.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Psychology

Vastet wrote:
Psychology shows that deterrence doesn't work on the majority at all. It's part of why spanking is now outlawed. Positive reinforcement works. Negative reinforcement just creates pissed off people.

So "It's really good that you let your kid's appendix explode. It's a really good thing. Please don't wish me into the cornfield" would work for you?

Not sure I get it.

"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


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Deterrence

Vastet wrote:
Deterrence via punishment is a proven failed strategy.

Evidence?


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
People who commit those

People who commit those sorts of crimes probably can't be deterred by more severe penalties. They weren't even deterred by the fact their own kid they cared about might die.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10593
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Vastet

jcgadfly wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Psychology shows that deterrence doesn't work on the majority at all. It's part of why spanking is now outlawed. Positive reinforcement works. Negative reinforcement just creates pissed off people.

So "It's really good that you let your kid's appendix explode. It's a really good thing. Please don't wish me into the cornfield" would work for you?

Not sure I get it.

Hardly. Positive reinforcement is rewarding good behaviour, not bad.

I'm in no position to determine that religion was the actual failure here. I'm just as inclined to believe the state is at fault for failing to provide adequate education.

In this particular circumstance, the parents aren't the first concern, the children are. After their safety is ensured, ideally, good parenting will be rewarded with more time with the kids and eventually full rights as any parent has.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10593
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:Vastet wrote:

Manageri wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Deterrence via punishment is a proven failed strategy.

Evidence?

Quote:
Research has found positive reinforcement is the most powerful of any of these. Adding a positive to increase a response not only works better, but allows both parties to focus on the positive aspects of the situation. Punishment, when applied immediately following the negative behavior can be effective, but results in extinction when it is not applied consistently. Punishment can also invoke other negative responses such as anger and resentment.

http://allpsych.com/psychology101/reinforcement.html

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3328
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:People who

Gauche wrote:

People who commit those sorts of crimes probably can't be deterred by more severe penalties. They weren't even deterred by the fact their own kid they cared about might die.

which is why i say get those kids out of there and leave those idiots to their own devices.  there's definitely no point in putting them in jail.  let them refuse to go to the hospital and die of sepsis all they want.  i don't give a shit what happens to them.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


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

Vastet wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Psychology shows that deterrence doesn't work on the majority at all. It's part of why spanking is now outlawed. Positive reinforcement works. Negative reinforcement just creates pissed off people.

So "It's really good that you let your kid's appendix explode. It's a really good thing. Please don't wish me into the cornfield" would work for you?

Not sure I get it.

Hardly. Positive reinforcement is rewarding good behaviour, not bad. I'm in no position to determine that religion was the actual failure here. I'm just as inclined to believe the state is at fault for failing to provide adequate education. In this particular circumstance, the parents aren't the first concern, the children are. After their safety is ensured, ideally, good parenting will be rewarded with more time with the kids and eventually full rights as any parent has.

I've never been one for rewarding people to do what they're supposed to (unless they do it especially well). They basically got positive reinforcement because they're religious ("yeah you watched your kid die but you're heart was in the right place because you asked the Jesus to help" )  

To me, it's like walking up to a guy who just killed someone with a pistol and saying "Nice shot."

"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


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10593
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Proper treatment of

Proper treatment of individuals rarely rewards the vengeance desire. But it works all the same.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Proper

Vastet wrote:
Proper treatment of individuals rarely rewards the vengeance desire. But it works all the same.

Tell me, did you get rewarded for everything that you did correctly (after you were taught how to do it and could do it on your own)? Wash your hands, get a reward - Eat with silverware, get a reward Brush your teeth - get a reward.

Thanks to the police, these people got a reward for following the Bible. Now that there's precedent, they'll get it again. Others might get that reward as well

"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


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10593
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
No, I didn't. Maybe I should

No, I didn't. Maybe I should have, I'd probably pay more attention to those things.

I'm not going to sit here and tell you everything works out great for everyone, but nothing will make the situation better anyway, so oh well.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:No, I didn't.

Vastet wrote:
No, I didn't. Maybe I should have, I'd probably pay more attention to those things. I'm not going to sit here and tell you everything works out great for everyone, but nothing will make the situation better anyway, so oh well.

Eventually, though, one hits a point where certain simple things are expected of them - it's called growing up.

I know these parents are in their mid to upper thirties but people who are indoctrinated that they are children who aren't allowed to grow up (as Christianity teaches) to the point where they can't see that what religious stuff they're doing isn't working) are a risk to their children

They got rewarded for that. I beg your pardon if I don't think rewarding parents for not having killed their kids yet each day is really allthat helpful.

"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


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3310
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:I've never

jcgadfly wrote:

I've never been one for rewarding people to do what they're supposed to (unless they do it especially well). They basically got positive reinforcement because they're religious ("yeah you watched your kid die but you're heart was in the right place because you asked the Jesus to help" )  

To me, it's like walking up to a guy who just killed someone with a pistol and saying "Nice shot."

Which brings about an interesting point to me.

Would putting these parents away give other parents involved in this wackjob religion a reason to pause ? Or would it fuel the fires of fanaticism even more ?

I got a better idea.

Everytime one of these incidents occurs, put the REVEREND in jail for preaching health endangerment or something.

Let's see how many of these snake oil salesmen peddle their crap when they have to pay the consequences for their ignorance dealing and fear-mongering.

I wonder how many ministers in this faith refuse medical help when their life is in jeopardy ?

Of course, the founder of the Snake Handler Pentecostals died from a snake bite, so who knows ?

But something tells me that behind a large majority of these reverends is just another used car salesman in Jesus drag.

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10593
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Vastet

jcgadfly wrote:

Vastet wrote:
No, I didn't. Maybe I should have, I'd probably pay more attention to those things. I'm not going to sit here and tell you everything works out great for everyone, but nothing will make the situation better anyway, so oh well.

Eventually, though, one hits a point where certain simple things are expected of them - it's called growing up.

I know these parents are in their mid to upper thirties but people who are indoctrinated that they are children who aren't allowed to grow up (as Christianity teaches) to the point where they can't see that what religious stuff they're doing isn't working) are a risk to their children

They got rewarded for that. I beg your pardon if I don't think rewarding parents for not having killed their kids yet each day is really allthat helpful.

And how is punishing them for being the victims of indoctrination going to help?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10593
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I think the problem here

I think the problem here stems much deeper than the parents, and quite possibly as much or more than 20% of ALL American parents would do exactly the same thing under the same circumstances. This couple just had the misfortune of being the ones who got bit in the ass by a serious malady.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


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

Vastet wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:

Vastet wrote:
No, I didn't. Maybe I should have, I'd probably pay more attention to those things. I'm not going to sit here and tell you everything works out great for everyone, but nothing will make the situation better anyway, so oh well.

Eventually, though, one hits a point where certain simple things are expected of them - it's called growing up.

I know these parents are in their mid to upper thirties but people who are indoctrinated that they are children who aren't allowed to grow up (as Christianity teaches) to the point where they can't see that what religious stuff they're doing isn't working) are a risk to their children

They got rewarded for that. I beg your pardon if I don't think rewarding parents for not having killed their kids yet each day is really allthat helpful.

And how is punishing them for being the victims of indoctrination going to help?

Make them realize their actions have consequences?

"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


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Research has

Vastet wrote:
Research has found positive reinforcement is the most powerful of any of these...

Nowehere in anything you linked is it demonstrated that punishment has no deterring effect, not that I expected it to since it's beyond obvious that it works as long as the risk of that punishment is taken seriously.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10593
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Make them realize their

"Make them realize their actions have consequences?"

If the death of their kid didn't do that, nothing will.

"owehere in anything you linked is it demonstrated that punishment has no deterring effect"

Strawman. Deterrence via punishment is a proven failed strategy. Does not equal: Punishment has no deterring effect.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is onlineOnline
iwbiek wrote: in this case,

iwbiek wrote:

 

in this case, society absolutely should get "stuck" with the bill, because a child alive and not dead is worth any fucking tax hike, and trumps any ideology.

Nice ideal but the practical reality is that self-preservation is the only real ideology anyone has.

iwbiek wrote:

unless of course you want to push for sterilization in such cases, in which case you got me right behind you, but realistically, it ain't gonna happen.

Because we don't actually get a bill. If people actually got a bill in the mail for other people's irresponsible behavior and irresponsible parenting, they would change their minds pretty quickly to this necessity.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10593
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
They'd get a bill if

They'd get a bill if government were more transparent.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:"Make them

Vastet wrote:
"Make them realize their actions have consequences?" If the death of their kid didn't do that, nothing will. "owehere in anything you linked is it demonstrated that punishment has no deterring effect" Strawman. Deterrence via punishment is a proven failed strategy. Does not equal: Punishment has no deterring effect.

The death of their kid didn't do that because they watched him die, remember? Besides, they think he's in heaven now.

I never claimed deterrence. I am against them being rewarded for their actions because they are religious.

Please get that straight.

"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


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4476
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:People who

Gauche wrote:

People who commit those sorts of crimes probably can't be deterred by more severe penalties. They weren't even deterred by the fact their own kid they cared about might die.

QFT

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4476
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 In what way are they being

 In what way are they being "rewarded" for their actions?

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: In

Beyond Saving wrote:

 In what way are they being "rewarded" for their actions?

5 years probation for homicide solely because they were religious?

Damn, their wrists must HURT.

"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


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10593
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"The death of their kid

"The death of their kid didn't do that because they watched him die, remember?"

1: How do you know? Dying and dead are two significantly different states. It is highly unlikely that both states resulted in indifference.

2: If true, then how will punishing them teach them anything?

I never suggested they get rewarded for this. The whole point of positive reinforcement is to reward good behaviour, not bad.

Please get that straight.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:"The death of

Vastet wrote:
"The death of their kid didn't do that because they watched him die, remember?" 1: How do you know? Dying and dead are two significantly different states. It is highly unlikely that both states resulted in indifference. 2: If true, then how will punishing them teach them anything? I never suggested they get rewarded for this. The whole point of positive reinforcement is to reward good behaviour, not bad. Please get that straight.

1. Watching someone die would, in my view (and most legal views) constitute a depraved indifference to human life.

2.  It may not. They might well be incorrigible (religionists tend to be inflexible). In which case positive reinforcement won't work either. I just happen to think that denying them the opportunity to do that to another kid would help them see that what they did wasn't behavior acceptable to society.

3. I'm well aware that you didn't suggest they get rewarded for it. I said that by them getting probation, they already got rewarded for it. Get vs. got - see the difference?

"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