Now, having said that... I think 25 years in prison is very harsh, given that there was no malice or ill intentions here. In many states 2nd degree murder and voluntary manslaughter do not carry that much time; some 1st Degree murderers get out in 15 or less. I think anything over 2 years would be overkill, because they very much wanted her to live...they just made a questionable choice as to method. I think the loss of their daughter, the shame of being arrested and convicted, have probably knocked some sense into them; I'd probably give them five years probation and time served if I were the judge.
I am not certain that malice is the most dangerous quality a person can possess. The prosecuting attorney stated in his closing argument that the thing that the father was guilty of, aside from the actual crime, was pride. From a societal standpoint, much harm comes from pride, especially that of the religious sort. Likewise, if you need God to back up your stances, he seems to be especially aggrieved by it , if memory serves. In fact, I am surprised that the God-fearing aren't calling for the death penalty, frankly. It's as if they feel some kinship with this guy even though his apparently bizarre theology led him to aid the destruction of his daughter.
Admittedly, malice also causes much harm, obviously. I am just not sure that it is necessary to establish malice in order to ask for harsh sentences.
Addressing the matter of a criminal's immediate reactions to being charged, found guilty and sentenced: Arguments could be made that other criminals have probably already had 'sense knocked into them' by the time they are sentenced, and yet no one makes those arguments for those criminals. I would argue that most criminals are starting to very much regret their decisions by the time their first year in prison is up. However, I am happy that such regret is reinforced by (much) longer prison sentences.
Another thing I find odd is that the conservative religious don't usually make arguments for leniency based on rehabilitation. This seems to be because they are usually asking society to consider retribution for the crime over all other considerations. Retribution satisfies the notion of Justice, and conservatives most often even argue for it in cases where the person is insane or the person is still a minor.
Finally, I don't think it is a given that the parent's utmost concern was the survival of their daughter. In fact, I would argue that it was probably something else, and that the survival of the daughter was of nominal concern.
I have some sincere and serious questions for those who believe these parents should get the full 25 years in prison:
If their daughter had died because they chose to attempt to use "alternative" or "holistic" medical practices on her, perhaps aided by a doctor who supported such therapy, would you still give them 25 years?
If the parents were aided by a doctor who misled them, then I would have a hard time punishing these people. When someone with credibility is involved, it greatly reduces the notion that the parents involved were engaging in some kind of
self-satisfying hubris. This, I think, is the characteristic that makes it criminal. Such a state of mind makes the act nearly sociopathic.
If their daughter had died in an automobile accident, caused by the other driver, but her parents had chosen not to make her buckle her seatbelt, would you still give them 25 years?
This would depend, I think, on a lot of other facts. Was it because the parent forgot, this time? Was it because the kids have frayed their last nerve, and they just don't want to fight about it this time? Was it because the parent didn't actually know what was going on in the back seat?
Or was it because the parent doesn't believe in the guvment telling
them how to live their lives and raise their children and they are proving their libertarian independence by endangering their children's lives?
I actually don't wear a seatbelt myself, if I can help it. Nevertheless, child passengers in my car always do.
