• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trial Begins in Girl's Faith-Healing Death

If I was sitting on their jury, I wouldn't be able to cast a guilty vote on a felony offense, because they had no intent to harm her.
Their clear intent, because of their beliefs, as misguided as they are, was to help.
 
Coolguy said:
If I was sitting on their jury, I wouldn't be able to cast a guilty vote on a felony offense, because they had no intent to harm her.
Their clear intent, because of their beliefs, as misguided as they are, was to help.
Click to expand...

That's why they charged the parents with reckless homicide - a crime of which they are guilty.

Source [US Legal | Reckless Homicide] (Local definitions will vary)

The following is an example of a state statute defining reckless homicide:

" Involuntary Manslaughter and Reckless Homicide.

1. person who unintentionally kills an individual without lawful justification commits involuntary manslaughter if his acts whether lawful or unlawful which cause the death are such as are likely to cause death or great bodily harm to some individual, and he performs them recklessly, except in cases in which the cause of the death consists of the driving of a motor vehicle, in which case the person commits reckless homicide.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Kernel Sanders said:
That's why they charged the parents with reckless homicide - a crime of which they are guilty.

Source [US Legal | Reckless Homicide] (Local definitions will vary)
Click to expand...
Even though I believe in the rule of law, I disagree with that very concept of this law because of intent.
I have no problem with a minor punishment being implemented, but nothing as great as as a sentencing structure that allows for up to 25 years imprisonment for something that wasn't intended.
 
Coolguy said:
Even though I believe in the rule of law, I disagree with that very concept of this law because of intent.
I have no problem with a minor punishment being implemented, but nothing as great as as a sentencing structure that allows for up to 25 years imprisonment for something that wasn't intended.
Click to expand...
Really? So if I went out, got plastered, got into my car and ran over a loved one of yours, you would be okay with a "minor punishment" because I didn't intend to actually kill anyone?

:doh
 
Dogger807 said:
Give me a reason to respect your beliefs and I will. Faith is not a reason. In fact faith is a lack of reason.
Click to expand...

You do realize how that statement contradicts itself, don't you?

Ahh well, more proven and sourced false premises from atheists. Some things never change.
 
Last edited:
EgoffTib said:
Really? So if I went out, got plastered, got into my car and ran over a loved one of yours, you would be okay with a "minor punishment" because I didn't intend to actually kill anyone?

:doh
Click to expand...
I think my statement in regards to my own personal beliefs, was clear.
So to answer your question... Yes.
And frankly, if you did do something that you hadn't intended, you had better pray someone like me is sitting on your jury.

No purpose is served to the community to have someone sitting in a prison cell over something they did not intend.
 
Jerry said:
You do realize how that statement contradicts itself, don't you?

Ahh well, more proven and sourced false premises from atheists. Some things never change.
Click to expand...


I think the meaning of that phrase is self evident in the context given. Not that you can't mess with it using semantics. Which is a favorite attack strategy for theists.
 
Dogger807 said:
I think the meaning of that phrase is self evident in the context given. Not that you can't mess with it using semantics. Which is a favorite attack strategy for theists.
Click to expand...

Yeah I know, darn those pesky words and their pre-determined definitions, why can't any word just mean whatever the hell we want when we want it to :lol:
 
Coolguy said:
No purpose is served to the community to have someone sitting in a prison cell over something they did not intend.
Click to expand...
Interesting. It would seem the community would benefit in that there would be one less idiot making poor decisions that kill people in the community's midst.
 
No purpose is served to the community to have someone sitting in a prison cell over something they did not intend.
Click to expand...

I'm sure Otty Sanchez down in San Antonio didn't intend to eat her baby's brain last Thursday, either, but do we really want her running around loose?

:confused:
 
EgoffTib said:
Interesting. It would seem the community would benefit in that there would be one less idiot making poor decisions that kill people in the community's midst.
Click to expand...
These so called idiots, were not killing people. A person in their care died because of a personal belief that prayer would help heal her.
This in no way would have an effect on anybody else in the community except family.
Nor would his release have any effect on the community.
The only way could possibly argue what you have, that he shouldn't be released, is if another person was going to be placed in their care.
Simple monitoring, that they would have to pay for, can take care of that.
 
Having people that stupid running around can only make the community worse. Nothing good can come from it.
 
Dogger807 said:
Trial Begins in Girl's Faith-Healing Death


Trial Begins in Girl's Faith-Healing Death - CBS News



Oh look.... Diffinitive proof that prayer works.

Seriously though, I can not fathom how the words "I believe" justify these actions. Why do we have to respect someones religion even if it kills, abuses, or "harms for life" their children?
Click to expand...

For the same reasons that Liberals are free to be Liberals.
 
apdst said:
For the same reasons that Liberals are free to be Liberals.
Click to expand...

How stupid. Being liberal doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. Refusing to get your daughter medical treatment resulting in her death obviously does.
 
Coolguy said:
These so called idiots, were not killing people. A person in their care died because of a personal belief that prayer would help heal her.
This in no way would have an effect on anybody else in the community except family.
Nor would his release have any effect on the community.
The only way could possibly argue what you have, that he shouldn't be released, is if another person was going to be placed in their care.
Simple monitoring, that they would have to pay for, can take care of that.
Click to expand...
The act of removing these parents from the community keeps them from reproducing and allowing another child to die in the future. I'm sorry you are struggling to grasp such a simple concept.
 
EgoffTib said:
The act of removing these parents from the community keeps them from reproducing and allowing another child to die in the future. I'm sorry you are struggling to grasp such a simple concept.
Click to expand...
I am not failing to understand your 'simple' concept.
Monitoring can take care of this.
The only reason I could see for them to be prevented from having another child, is if they had intended to do harm, and clearly they did not.
 
Last edited:
Coolguy said:
I am not failing to understand your 'simple' concept.
Monitoring can take care of this.
The only reason I could see for them to be prevented from having another child, is if they had intended to do harm, and clearly they did not.
Click to expand...
Regardless of whether or not they intended to do harm, they allowed a child to die. Why would you compromise more lives by allowing them to continue to have children that could be denied medical attention?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom