Is this murder?

[guidi2009]

"Zachery Swezey was a junior at Pateros High School when he died on March 18, 2009, of a ruptured appendix. Greg and JaLea Swezey prayed by their son’s side and called in elders from the Church of the First Born who anointed their son with olive oil, but never called for a doctor or ambulance"



http://www.wenatcheeworld.com/news/2...-in-the-works/

[Jayeburgh]

I remember this story.

I still think it's murder. Second degree.

[free2131]

These type of people are totally nuts. I don't think 2nd degree murder fits because it isn't anything that they did to the child. He died of a medical issue. Manslaughter seems like it wouldn't be right either. I'm thinking since the kid was under 18, I'd go for negligence, child endangerment, or something along those lines. Preferable something with a prison sentence so one of the other inmates can show him some new uses for that holy oil.

[Alloutwar]

Thousandth time I've brought it up, but - if you had testing and licensing before we allowed people to procreate, this **** wouldn't happen.

"If your child were sick and not getting better, would you a) seek medical help immediately, b) perform incantations and sacrifice a domestic animal, or c) pray for divine assistance?" Don't answer A, and boom, no kids for you.

Sperm/egg meeting is super precious and we need laws to protect it, but a full-grown human can have a medical emergency and 'be left to god's hands' and die.

[HoustonGM]

Thousandth time I've brought it up, but - if you had testing and licensing before we allowed people to procreate, this **** wouldn't happen.

"If your child were sick and not getting better, would you a) seek medical help immediately, b) perform incantations and sacrifice a domestic animal, or c) pray for divine assistance?" Don't answer A, and boom, no kids for you.

Sperm/egg meeting is super precious and we need laws to protect it, but a full-grown human can have a medical emergency and 'be left to god's hands' and die.

And if they have a kid anyway? Put them in jail, depriving a child of their parents before the parents have done anything actually wrong? Force them to have an abortion?

These parents deserve to be punished, but as someone that favors freedom and the government staying out of the private sexual affairs of consenting adults, regulation of procreation is a no-no.

[Alloutwar]

ideally everyone would be unable to have children through some chemical means - injection, pills, surgery, etc. That would be immensely more effective than trying to regulate after the fact.

Of course people will be all up in arms about injections or anything, because our freedom to screw up society irreversably is a much higher precedence than wise preventative measures.

[HoustonGM]

As much as I hate stupid people, they still should have freedom. The government shouldn't have the right to surgically prevent someone from ever procreating based on some arbitrary test that they get to create. No way. Nevermind the logistical nightmare you're proposing - how do you get people to take this test before getting pregnant? It's impossible to have a system where you aren't regulating after the fact, and that introduces its own cluster**** of scary issues.

[Alloutwar]

Exactly - doing anything before the fact will lead to people protesting injections or invasive procedures or even hormone pills. People will scream eugenics (even though its not permanent) and its just too taboo to ever touch.

The only real shot is an after-the-fact penalization, like being ineligible for social security, medicare/medicaid, any kind of welfare. But you'd have to punish the parent and not the kid...it gets dicey, but it's going to be a necessity in the future, unless we all suddenly smarten up and stop pooping out kids at the fastest rate in human history.

[HoustonGM]

Exactly - doing anything before the fact will lead to people protesting injections or invasive procedures or even hormone pills. People will scream eugenics (even though its not permanent) and its just too taboo to ever touch.

It's not even about the totally justified outcry against such an invasive policy. It's simply a matter of logistics - HOW would you do it?

[ragecage]

While we are at it AOW, I have some Soylent Green if you're interested.

[Kobie]

Murder? No. But there definitely should be some criminal liability here. When someone's religious practices end up with someone unnecessarily dead, I think it ceases to be a freedom-of-religion issue.

[haveacigar]

Legally, it's involuntary manslaughter. 2nd degree murder still requires an intent to cause some bodily harm. But, you know, feel free to go extra heavy on the sentencing, judge.

[guidi2009]

Legally, it's involuntary manslaughter. 2nd degree murder still requires an intent to cause some bodily harm. But, you know, feel free to go extra heavy on the sentencing, judge.

What if the parents weren't religious and they said something like, "He's a tough kid, we thought he would heal on his own"

[haveacigar]

What if the parents weren't religious and they said something like, "He's a tough kid, we thought he would heal on his own"

Same deal. They still didn't intend to cause bodily harm. And really, why would that be any different? It's not like I suggested that there was a "religious boobs" exception to the law.

[asianinvasion]

Same deal. They still didn't intend to cause bodily harm. And really, why would that be any different? It's not like I suggested that there was a "religious boobs" exception to the law.

But if they weren't religious at all, the public reaction would be that the parents abused their child and they would most likely get at least involuntary manslaughter charges. But once religion gets involved, it's suddenly somewhat OK because they were following their beliefs and if you charge and sentence them for a crime, then you are persecuting their beliefs and they really didn't mean it for their kid to die.

And I guess woo Washington state for getting in the headlines