Faith-Healing Parents Who Killed Son Sentenced to Prison

Travesty of justice.

Then even by your criteria, Ron, these people should serve 16 years instead of 16 months. I am afraid they will have more children and abuse or kill them too.

They should be incarcerated until their God tells us to release them from prison.

I would hope that the anguish of losing a child, and the guilt of knowing you were responsible for it, would be a greater punishment than any man-made prison…

And yet this guy stands to get two years in prison for destroying a book of fairy tales.

@Mike

“I would hope that the anguish of losing a child, and the guilt of knowing you were responsible for it, would be a greater punishment than any man-made prison…”

Do you really believe that they will not rationalize this as being indicative of God’s will?

-Rape small children, get away with it, let your child die because you believe in an invisible person. Why are children not given the right to have justice done.
I cannot see any remorse from these vile, cant call them humans, -things.- How many cases like this are around and what does this sentence tell them.
Give them the book ‘God hates you, hate him back-making sense of the bible, make them readfirst chapter and see if they believe they did the right thing.
There has been a case where a man drowned his four children and the judge has said he will be shown pictures of his children while he is awaiting his death sentence, let these so called parents have to do the same.

I know this is going to be wildly unpopular with this demographic, but this is a case in which I would wish for the death penalty. I’m not interested in deterrent. Nobody has proven to my satisfaction that there is a deterrent aspect to culling bad guys. I’m only interested in guaranteeing that they will not hurt another person again.
However, in the real world (at least for now) it is too expensive to execute someone and the death penalty is applied in too arbitrary a fashion. So, from a practical standpoint, killing them is not the answer. Give ’em life without parole.

I liked Ron’s initial answer, perhaps modifying to include voluntary sterilization in return for reduced sentences. However, whatever sentence they are given, they and others like them may view as martyrdom and have the opposite of the desired effect.

Did you not love the judge’s line “unwillingness to respect the boundaries of freedom of religious expression?” Those elusive, ever-changing boundaries– at least the judge acknowledged they do exist. Now if they just be better defined and tightened-up a bit…

Twin-Skies: Yeah, they would, wouldn’t they?

A longer sentence might have the effect of not allowing them to have more children, by the simple fact that the older they get the less fertile they will be. Not a bad solution, if you ask me, and within the confines of the American legal system, unless I am very much mistaken.

@Mike: While the shame and sorrow of killing your own child might be sufficient for you or me, do you really think these morons feel they did anything wrong?
After all, they believe the child is happily playing his harp in heaven now.
No, they have to be incarcerated, if only to reduce the odds they’ll get an opportunity to make another baby. With a longer sentence, they (or at least she) would be too old to get pregnant.
When they have another baby – and I’d bet my house they will – they won’t take it to a doctor either. If the next kid gets seriously ill, this atrocity will happen again. If anything, these nitwits are proud of themselves.

Insanity doesn’t always manifest as a loony tunes character.

They should be in an asylum. Indefinitely.

If the parents had murdered him as a sacrifice to an obscure god?

16 months doesn’t even begin to make up for such a horrendous crime. If I were in that judge’s seat, they would be serving the maximum allowable sentence. I take solace in the fact that, when these 2 are raped and beaten within an inch of their life in prison, they’ll refuse medical treatment and suffer all the longer. I despise motherfuckers like this.

So.. I was raised Christian Scientist which is one of the religions known for believing in prayer over medicine. My parents were moderate enough in it that they saw the doctor when my little sister stepped on a nail and when she got strep-throat. Also we got mandatory vaccinations, which I’m sure helped. That said, I personally had not really seen a doctor until I was 16, I forget for what. At that point I was already an athiest (lost the faith at 14).
It’s interesting how I still to this day don’t automatically reach for the Tylenol when I’m sore, my upbringing left me with little faith in medicine.
But luckily my mother understood the boundaries of her faith. She knew that while it was fine to pray away colds, it was necessary to see a doctor when something legit serious came up.
These parents obviously did not understand these boundaries. I sometimes wonder if even a Christian Scientist practitioner would suggest a doctor to at least augment the effects of prayer. Though my crazy practitioner aunt believes her sister was saved from polio via the praying and that the doctor wouldn’t have healed her completely.
As much as I respect my mother’s religion, given that it was my own for 14 years, people need to understand that there are boundaries to what “mind over matter” can do and that maybe the “material body” sometimes needs a doctor.

Someone mentioned the possibility of adoption, but does anyone know if people who have charges of criminally negligent homicide would be allowed to adopt? Just curious.

I have to oppose the idea of forced sterilization. It has too much potential to be abused as it has in the past to eliminate reproduction of the “undesirables.” It’s too much of an arbitrary decision who would get sterilized and who wouldn’t.

Voluntary sterilization in this case, however, would be an appropriate course of action. But we all know how important it is to some xtians to keep breeding little xtian soldiers for god. *unhappy sigh*

As far as the death penalty, I tentatively support it. It would be better if we had a foolproof system to protect people who were actually innocent, but that’s my only hangup on it. I really don’t care too much about people like these parents who neglected and ultimately killed a child. They made that decision, and to hell with their civil rights. @ The Godless Monster, I’m not interested in a deterrent either. Just get rid of the bastards.

Stupidity and gullibility have a price, it’s a real shame that a child had to pay for the ineptitude of his parents. What makes matters worse is that they’ll likely never realize what they did wrong, or how stupid they are. In fact, they may become even more locked in their views due to this, and actually take pride in their “trusing” God even when he “said no”.

What can we do against such utter delusion?

I would hope that the anguish of losing a child, and the guilt of knowing you were responsible for it, would be a greater punishment than any man-made prison…

I would hope that, too. Sadly, I’m not sure it’d hold up. Based on popular Christianity, all they have to do is pray, and they’ve given full forgiveness for any/all sins. Add to that the idea that their dead son is in heaven, and rationalize away his death with “God had other plans for him”, and you’ve got all the ingredients for a “get out of guilt free” card.

Never underestimate the capacity for self-delusion.

Other Mike:

I would hope that the anguish of losing a child, and the guilt of knowing you were responsible for it, would be a greater punishment than any man-made prison…

In much the same way that sentimental value is not actual value, I would say that emotional punishment is not actual punishment. Within the next two years, these people will be released back into society, where they may well repeat what they’ve already done. We’ve seen it happen before.

Miko: There’s a difference between being jailed for political views and activism and being imprisoned for murdering your child. Your comparison is way off base.

@Lifer
“They should be incarcerated until their God tells us to release them from prison.”
&
“…he presents a strong case for no one being imprisoned for anything, ever.”

Hilarious 🙂

“@Chas:
And what if they decide to adopt?”

They should be turned down because they’ve proven themselves unfit parents

We are merely playing at secularism if we continue to allow religious beliefs of the perpetrator to soften punishment. If the religious aspect of this case was removed the punishment would be wholly different.

This does not send the correct message and it should not be allowed to proliferate. It seems like more and more of these cases are happening every year and the punishments are always ridiculously deflated.

WTF is wrong with the judge who ordered that sentence?! People like this make Ted Bundy look like a -hhmmm I was going to say saint but that doesn’t make any sense given what saints are wont to do – fabulous, kind, loving man.

I think I just threw up a little bit thinking about that sentence.

@Sunioc & Sarah,
Unfortunately, due to the low risk category they are in as prisoners and the fact that they are classified as non-violent offenders, they will most likely (although this is not guaranteed), be placed in a low security facility with other non-violent offenders. Probably no extreme buggery or ass kickings in their futures. Still, one can hold out hope…

This is what I would call a miscarriage of justice; I typed up a little response a few minutes ago. I think it’s ridiculous that these people are given sixteen months. I thought I mis-read the sentence at first; sixteen years is, in my opinion, too lenient. I can’t help but feel the irony; fundamentalist Christians are so against abortion but as soon as the baby’s born, it’s fine to completely mistreat it. Figures.

Unfortunately, due to the low risk category they are in as prisoners and the fact that they are classified as non-violent offenders, they will most likely (although this is not guaranteed), be placed in a low security facility with other non-violent offenders. Probably no extreme buggery or ass kickings in their futures. Still, one can hold out hope…

I will never understand the admiration that some Americans have for the crimes perpetrated in their prisons…

It’s disgusting.

@Beth – I just think that unless the government can show that the parents don’t care, or care in the negative it shouldn’t step in. I don’t like to see the government stepping in and regulating parenting. If they can jail you for stupidity how about parents who let their kids get involved in dangerous sports such as football? That seems stupid to me. Should the government decide that doing so is stupid and arrest people who’s children get killed?

Seeing the child get worse could have been viewed by the parents as god testing their faith. We hear that nonsense all the time and some of them believe it. Maybe these parents did. Their ability to reason was flawed so I wouldn’t expect them to be able to interpret the signs correctly.

My main reason for commenting is that I think those of us who are non-religious are in the right and we have no reason to need to demonize these fools. We should be focusing on this case as an example of how religion can cause harm. I agree that it is extremely annoying that they may have gotten a break because of their religion and I do agree that we should be working to prevent such preferential treatment but I don’t think any parent religious or not who lets their child die out of stupidity alone should get a harsher sentence than this. Because I feel this way, I’m not so sure they did get a religious break. Whoever did the sentencing may have just been thinking like me.

I read the newspaper article this is quoted from (The Oregonian) and it’s worth mentioning that the parents said they were honoring their son’s wishes by not seeking treatment. Of course the reason the son felt that way was due to them raising him in their Christian-Scientist like religion.

Even so, I think it was right that they were punished.

This kid died of an untreated, out of control urinary tract infection. Painful way to go as it is not a quick way to die. Not a mistake. Negligence? yes, but that implies lack of intent or just a lack of knowledge. Willful ignorance is one idea. Brainwashing is an idea, but to me this requires compliance by the victim, on some tiny level. Not always.

How does medical treatment with a simple first line antibiotic have the capacity to threaten or anger their big bad god. The Jehovah’s Witness blood thing…I sort of get it, if I squint real hard. But this? No. Even as a former believer, it’s impossible to wrap my mind around it.

If it was me, as a mother, I would have secretly taken him to a doctor against the wishes of whoever, the threat of hell be damned. But, I have a rebellious streak that even jesus couldn’t stop. But this says he was 16 and didn’t want treatment. Can’t strap him in a car seat and sneak away. Physically not an option w/a teenage boy, but I would find a way. Not that his opinion or wishes would have mattered either

@ CeJuan. Again, Ignorance is no excuse. A child was killed. They deserve punishment. End of story.

It isn’t reckless if they think they are doing the right thing. Reckless is when they don’t care if they are doing the right thing. Stupid is when they can’t figure out what is the right thing. Some of the definitions of negligence that I saw included the word reckless, but none included stupid.

I think we need to clearly distinguish stupidity from fanaticism and/or insanity, and not allow any of the three to serve as an excuse for the death of a child. These people weren’t just stupid, they were fanatics. If they were merely stupid they would have made unpredictable stupid mistakes that could have led to the harm of their children. There was nothing unpredictable about this. There is a clear bright red line between their religious beliefs and what happened.

I probably agree that refusing to feed a child is criminal negligence because no child ever survived without food. However, sometimes children seem really sick and then recover.

Unless I’m mistaken you are making the argument that it is more “reasonable” to deny a child medical care than to deny a child food. Well, that could be so, within the insanity of both, but I believe it does not relate to this case in two ways. 1. It assumes that the parents look to the observable reality of the world as a way to influence their decision making. I see no evidence of that in this case. 2. What they did went beyond the pale. This boy was writhing in agony and they knew he was not just a little sick. The comparison is not a child with no food vs. a child with a flu, its a child with no food vs. a child in critical condition.

Beyond this argument however I think the point needs to be made that parents cannot dispose of their children as they see fit beyond a certain level of risk. I’m aware that deciding what is too risky is not a clear cut matter, but that doesn’t mean you throw up your hands and decide that parents are allowed to expose their children to anything since you can’t agree on gray-area cases. Parents must understand that they have a legal responsibility to, at minimum, provide basic physical needs for their children. Any parent who demonstrates that they do not understand that, whether it be because they are mentally disabled or crippled by fanatic beliefs of any kind, forfeits their right to be a parent. In extreme cases like this one parents should be sent to jail or to a mental institutions, as applicable.

CeJuan:

It isn’t reckless if they think they are doing the right thing.

Can you really say this with a straight face? Honestly? Because it justifies any action taken with good intentions.

Sometimes doctors are wrong. Sometimes doctors treat more aggressively than they should. So there is some judgment required in the case of the treatment of a sick child.

And these people couldn’t possibly make that decision, because they never went to a doctor. Their religious delusions killed their child.

@Claudia, thanks for the response. I will have to give most of it a little more thought. I do want to say that if we know that they were “disposing” of their children then I agree that we should throw the book at them. I wasn’t thinking of this as a disposal situation.

@Mike the infidel
Perhaps I should have said “It doesn’t fit most definitions of reckless if they think they are doing the right thing. Most definitions of reckless involve some sort of lack of concern for what is right” And, yes I can say it with a straight face because I think it is true. Its just a definition and I’m not going to pretend its otherwise just because I don’t like all the consequences. As for it justifying “any action taken with good intentions”, such is not my intent :-). I’m just talking about what should be the government’s responsibility, not the individual’s responsibility. We need to hold ourselves responsible even when intentions are good and we need to educate people who mean well but are ignorant. Perhaps some jail time is the best way to educate them, perhaps it is not. As a father who tells my children to question authority I have to allow them the option to not be convinced by authority. It doesn’t make sense to say, “question authority, but if it turns out they were right, you’re going to fry” I’m assuming that these people weren’t convinced by the science and the doctors. If they were convinced but refused treatment anyway, then I agree that more jail time would be warranted. The law should mostly be reserved for punishing people who don’t mean well and in cases like this, stepping in before the death occurs to prevent the death and get the children to a safe place.

I’m just talking about what should be the government’s responsibility, not the individual’s responsibility. We need to hold ourselves responsible even when intentions are good and we need to educate people who mean well but are ignorant.
…
I’m assuming that these people weren’t convinced by the science and the doctors. If they were convinced but refused treatment anyway, then I agree that more jail time would be warranted.
…
The law should mostly be reserved for punishing people who don’t mean well and in cases like this, stepping in before the death occurs to prevent the death and get the children to a safe place.

Okay. Three things.

1. It is the government’s responsibility to define the laws and punish people accordingly. Ignorance is never an excuse for the death of your child. “I didn’t know he would die” is meaningless. They should’ve known. As adults, as parents, there are responsibilities that our society expects them to assume. If they don’t, and a child dies, their intentions are utterly irrelevant. Were this flat-out murder – that is, if they were totally oblivious to the idea that we frown upon directly killing children, and they killed their child as part of a ritualistic sacrifice – their ignorance would not be an excuse. It should not be one here, either.

2. Jail time should not be based on whether someone believes evidence or not. Otherwise, it could just as easily work the other way. A nation of religious zealots could imprison an atheist for refusing to observe some practice that the zealots believed prevented a curse from being put on their nation. The evidence alone, regardless of personal prejudice or acceptance, is what should be judged. People should not be let off easily because of their delusions. You would not see this kind of leniency for anything but religious reasons.

3. If the law were only reserved for punishing people who didn’t mean well, we would have no laws against actions that cause unintentional harm.

A handful of crazy religion people kill their kids. “OH NOES!!! They should turn them over to doctors immediately… who frequently screw up and kill way, way, way more people than any crazy religion has, except Islam, since the Middle Ages.”

The problem is that a doctor killing someone ‘negligently, accidentally, forgetting to do such and such, not recommending a treatment such and such’ is so common it’s not news. Religions stuff is news and gets too much emotional power behind it, and then it gets used to mess with rights.

Yeah, religions are doctrinally stupid. As communities, as cultures that are not government based, they’re sometimes the only thing that gets between people and the government.

Could you imagine what would happen if the Catholic Church told the US government ‘stop taking knitting needles from old ladies, nail clippers from guys on business trips, and patting down little five year old girls who tell you ‘stop touching me!’ when dealing with airline safety?

Religion is stupid, but governments have armies behind them. Which is also why you don’t want a religion running your government, but having both lets them take it out on each other, not you.