Faith-healing parents charged in death of infant son

[HVAC Instructor]

Amazing that in this day and age such nonsense still occurrs:

Faith-healing parents charged in death of infant son | Philadelphia Daily News | 10/08/2009

Faith-healing parents charged in death of infant son

By MENSAH M. DEAN

Philadelphia Daily News

deanm@phillynews.com 215-854-5949

On the last day of Kent Schaible's life, his parents and pastor intensely prayed over his 32-pound body, which, unbeknown to them, was ravaged by bacterial pneumonia.

When the 2-year-old boy finally died at 9:30 p.m. Jan. 24 inside the family's Northeast Philadelphia home, the pastor called a funeral director to take the boy's remains to the Philadelphia Medical Examiner's Office.

At no time that day, nor in the week-and-a-half prior, did Herbert and Catherine Schaible seek medical treatment for their son despite his sore throat, congestion, liquid bowel movements, sleeplessness and trouble swallowing, Assistant District Attorney Joanne Pescatore said in court yesterday.

"All it would have taken is a simple visit to a doctor for antibiotics or Tylenol, maybe, to keep this child alive," she said during the couple's preliminary hearing.

After the two attorneys representing the Schaibles argued for their innocence, Municipal Judge Patrick Dugan held them for trial on charges of involuntary manslaughter, conspiracy to commit involuntary manslaughter and endangering the welfare of a child.

"When you look at this case, it's obvious that what you have are loving parents who also appear to be misguided," Dugan told the couple. "Your child needed medical care. As parents, that's what your duty is, and that's why you are here in court today."

The Schaibles' case is similar to a growing number around the country in which parents are slapped with criminal charges for turning to religion rather than medical care for sick children who later die.

Herbert Schaible, 41, and Catherine Schaible, 40, of Rhawn Street near Bustleton Avenue, are free on bail and will be arraigned on Oct. 28.

They are members of the First Century Gospel Church, in the Northeast, which believes that the sick can be healed through prayer rather than by medicine, according to statements that the couple gave homicide detectives two days after their son's death.

" 'We prayed to God for victory . . . We were praying that he would be raised up, " Detective Stephen Buckley said yesterday, reading from Herbert Schaible's statement.

Herbert Schaible is a teacher at First Century Gospel Church, said his attorney, Bobby Hoof.

"They believe in faith-healing; that's fine for them," Pescatore said after the hearing. "But this was a two-year-old child."

On Jan. 13 or 14, Kent started showing symptoms of illness that at times improved but generally grew worse until his death on Jan. 24, his parents said in their statements.

" 'He was moody and demanding; you couldn't please him,' " Det. Buckley said, quoting from Catherine Schaible's statement.

Edwin Lieberman, the assistant medical examiner who did Kent's autopsy, said that he had determined the manner of death to be a homicide because the boy could have been saved with basic medical care.

Bacterial pneumonia "is very treatable," he said, but without care he "seriously" doubted if Kent improved at all, as his parents had told detectives.

Francis Carmen, Catherine Schaible's attorney, said that the couple's decision to forgo medical attention was not due to their religion, but because they thought Kent had a cold.

"The commonwealth wants to use [the Schaible's] religious beliefs as a self-fulfilling prophecy that, somehow, because they are different and because they exercise religious beliefs that are not necessarily in line with the majority of us," he said, "that is the cause of them failing to recognize that this child was as ill as he was."

Hoof, on behalf of Herbert Schaible, said that his client did everything in his power to care for his son in the days before he died - feeding him and giving him liquids.

"He cared for his child and thought his child was getting better," Hoof told reporters.

When asked why he did not call a doctor, he said: "He never said that he would not take the child to a doctor in his statement. He never said that."

[Midtowner]

As nuts as it may sound, I think these parents being prosecuted is unconstitutional under the free exercise clause. Several courts have held that way. There's also an argument that this denies other parents equal protection under the law.

I think we all should be very careful about letting the government criminalize religious beliefs and practices.

Article: Christian Science healing of minor children: spiritual exemption statutes,... | AccessMyLibrary - Promoting library advocacy

[HVAC Instructor]

As nuts as it may sound, I think these parents being prosecuted is unconstitutional under the free exercise clause. Several courts have held that way. There's also an argument that this denies other parents equal protection under the law.

I think we all should be very careful about letting the government criminalize religious beliefs and practices.

Article: Christian Science healing of minor children: spiritual exemption statutes,... | AccessMyLibrary - Promoting library advocacy

So then are you saying that under the tenets of religion, parents should be able do do anything they wish to their minor children, regardless of whether it causes harm to the child?

[Midtowner]

So then are you saying that under the tenets of religion, parents should be able do do anything they wish to their minor children, regardless of whether it causes harm to the child?

I didn't say that at all. Here, you have a prosecution which is asking the court to rule that religious beliefs are in essence and practice, criminal. That's some scary ground to be treading on.

The crime being charged here is a common law concept known as involuntary manslaughter. It requires that the defendant have acted in some way which is negligent which causes a death of another human being. The parents believed that through faith healing, they were treating the child's illness.

Consider that the Constitution says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" and no law "prohibiting the free exercise thereof." How would a ruling from a court holding that religious beliefs are on the level of criminal negligence not be prohibiting the free exercise of religion?

The test for whether a criminal prosecution violates the Free Exercise Clause is found in Employment Division v. Smith 494 U.S. 872 (1990), where the Supreme Court of the United States held that "neutral laws of general applicability do not violate the Free Exercise Clause" (the complaintant said that laws prohibiting him from smoking peyote violated his Constitutional rights).

In our present case, the issue is whether the defendants' conduct conforms to the standard of criminal negligence. To get there, the court has to specifically rule that the belief that faith healing works is criminally negligent. I'm not comfortable with that concept at all. Courts have no business telling religions what beliefs are and are not acceptable under the law.

[mugofbeer]

In our present case, the issue is whether the defendants' conduct conforms to the standard of criminal negligence. To get there, the court has to specifically rule that the belief that faith healing works is criminally negligent. I'm not comfortable with that concept at all. Courts have no business telling religions what beliefs are and are not acceptable under the law.

I disagree with the notion of courts having no business in these sorts of matters. There have been several similar cases in recent years that have drawn publicity and the fact that parents are willing to let children die rather than be given simple medical care because of religious beliefs is cruel. These people are waaaaaaaay out on the fringe and at some point when their cruelty is forced on children - whether their own or not - is unacceptable. They can let themselves die rather than accept medical treatment because they are adults making adult decisions (as irrational as they may be), but to force pain and suffering on children is simple cruelty. Its no different than beating their own children - but in this case the suffering can go on for weeks and months and it is totally unnecessary.

[Midtowner]

mug, I'm not saying the state should stand by and let it happen. I'm saying criminally prosecuting for involuntary manslaughter shouldn't fly. The state had an adequate remedy here -- it could have had child protective services pick the kids up because the parents' decision to not treat was doing irreparable harm to the child. This would have been an easy case because the standard would have been different. You wouldn't have to show that the parents' beliefs were criminally negligent, just that they were doing harm to the child and that the child needed to be in the state's protective custody.

It may seem like I'm splitting hairs here, but that's the way the law sometimes works. While the two ideas may seem similar, they're legally worlds apart.

[mugofbeer]

No, I see what you are saying but in most of these cases the parents love their children just as much as you and I love our children. They are willing to let their children die because of this irrational disbelief that humans should interfere "with the Lord's will." There have been a couple of instances I recall up in the Boston area when there wasn't time to take the issue to court and hold deliberations. The courts need ways to be able to immediately intervene if there is suspicion of faith healers harming their children by refusing medical treatment.

[HVAC Instructor]

I didn't say that at all. Here, you have a prosecution which is asking the court to rule that religious beliefs are in essence and practice, criminal. That's some scary ground to be treading on.

I see the question as addressing the parents actions, or lack thereof, rather than their beliefs. Reasonable parents should have taken corrective and preventive action to ensure the heatlh and welfare of their child. Religious beliefs cannot be allowed to circumvent reasonable action to save the life of a child when these reasonable actions have been known and available for many decades in American society.

The crime being charged here is a common law concept known as involuntary manslaughter. It requires that the defendant have acted in some way which is negligent which causes a death of another human being. The parents believed that through faith healing, they were treating the child's illness.

As stated, actions are at issue here rather than beliefs. The actions of the parents in denying this child reasonable medical care resulted in the death of their child, therefore the parents should be held accountable for their actions.

Consider that the Constitution says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" and no law "prohibiting the free exercise thereof." How would a ruling from a court holding that religious beliefs are on the level of criminal negligence not be prohibiting the free exercise of religion?

Again, the actions and behaviors of the parents are at issue here, not the religious beliefs. If one believed that certian offenses by a child merited the killing of that child as prescribed by religious text, would a reasonable legal system allow this under the Constitution?

The test for whether a criminal prosecution violates the Free Exercise Clause is found in Employment Division v. Smith 494 U.S. 872 (1990), where the Supreme Court of the United States held that "neutral laws of general applicability do not violate the Free Exercise Clause" (the complaintant said that laws prohibiting him from smoking peyote violated his Constitutional rights).

It is one issue to test whether a victimless crime like smoking peyote or marijuana in a religious ritual versus say the sacrifice of the life of a human child in religious ritual. Again, it comes down to reasonable actions.

In our present case, the issue is whether the defendants' conduct conforms to the standard of criminal negligence. To get there, the court has to specifically rule that the belief that faith healing works is criminally negligent. I'm not comfortable with that concept at all. Courts have no business telling religions what beliefs are and are not acceptable under the law.

Sticking solely with actions here, these parents were clearly negligent. Was it reasonable to deny this child basic medical care? That is the question. Were they criminally negligent? That is for a jury to decide.

More questions:

Is it reasonable to deny a child basic medical care for any reason?

Were these parents aware that basic medcal care was available to them?

What advice was given to these parents by their minister?

Was the minister aware of treatment options?

Should the minister be criminally charged along with the parents if he was aware of the medical treatment options that would have saved this childs life?

[Midtowner]

HVAC, every criminal prosecution (with the exception of conduct crimes, which murder isn't) has two basic things which must be proved:

1) The actus reus, or the act itself, which is defined as a willful contraction of the muscles to do the bad act. If my defense to a crime is that I was sleep walking, what I'm saying is that in essence, there was no willful contraction of my muscles, thus no act, ergo, no crime.

In our case above, this is no problem. The parents refused to do the thing which led to the kid's death.

2) The mens rea, or the mental state. The state has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's mental state conformed to the level required by the statute. Different states have different mental states, but they generally follow the trend (in order of proof requirement and seriousness) of being intentionally, knowingly, recklessly and negligently.

If I'm driving along, exercising reasonable care, obeying all the traffic laws, etc., and a kid jumps out of nowhere and in front of my car, causing the kid's death, the state won't be able to prosecute me for the killing and I won't be civilly liable. I may even have a cause of action against the kid's estate for damage to my car. The reason? I didn't have the requisite mental state to be convicted of a crime. I wasn't negligent. Even though I committed an act which resulted in a death, the lack of the requisite mental state means I'm not guilty of any crime.

In this case, the mens rea is the big constitutional issue. This doesn't go to a jury until a court actually holds that as a matter of law, a person's practicing certain religious beliefs can be criminally negligent.

[HVAC Instructor]

MT-

I think we can agree there is more to this case than the concepts of actus reus and mens rea. While these are indeed legitimate questions to be answered, there are extenuating circumstances and further questions to be asked and answered in this case. Certainly in defense, it is logical to argue the religious practices and the Constitutional logic of the position. However, from a standpoint of a prosecutor, the actions or lack of actions of the parents is at issue. This can be viewed as leaving the scene of an accident without attempting to render aid and the accident victim dies. You may not have had any part in causing the accident, but you were aware of it, yet chose to leave the scene, taking no action.

This will be an interesting case to follow as it progresses through the legal system.

[Midtowner]

Well again, the acts themselves aren't at issue. Everyone will admit to what the acts were. There's no controversy there whatsoever.

The key is whether, as a matter of law (that means the judge decides, not the jury), a religious belief can be held to be criminally negligent.

It's a tough question.

[HVAC Instructor]

Well again, the acts themselves aren't at issue. Everyone will admit to what the acts were. There's no controversy there whatsoever.

The key is whether, as a matter of law (that means the judge decides, not the jury), a religious belief can be held to be criminally negligent.

It's a tough question.

I don't agree with the premise that it is religious beliefs that are at issue here. A religious belief not acted upon can do no harm, can it? Just as no stationary weapon can, by itself, harm anyone. Beliefs and weapons require human action to do good or harm, therefore, the parents are facing criminal charges for the negligent death of their child. Same as if that loaded firearm was left in the room with 3 year old children, that's criminal negligence, because a reasonable adult would remove that firearm before children entered the room. Even though the second amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms, just as the first amendment prevents congress from establishing a national religion, it does not relieve individuals of their responsibility to protect children in their charge from harm due to negligence.

[Midtowner]

You're still not getting it. The actions themselves (or failure to act) are irrelevant. To be prosecutable, they have to have been capable of having the requisite state of mind. To have that requisite state of mind, the judge would have to hold that as a matter of law, their beliefs were criminally negligent.

If the beliefs were not criminally negligent, then there was no negligence, thus no homicide case can be brought due to the act of the requisite mens rea.

If you don't understand, that's fine. It's a tricky point of criminal law -- you can't think of offenses as being single actions. The state has to prove several elements beyond a reasonable doubt. There are dozens or hundreds of rules surrounding each element. It can be real tricky.

[HVAC Instructor]

You're still not getting it. The actions themselves (or failure to act) are irrelevant. To be prosecutable, they have to have been capable of having the requisite state of mind. To have that requisite state of mind, the judge would have to hold that as a matter of law, their beliefs were criminally negligent.

If the beliefs were not criminally negligent, then there was no negligence, thus no homicide case can be brought due to the act of the requisite mens rea.

If you don't understand, that's fine. It's a tricky point of criminal law -- you can't think of offenses as being single actions. The state has to prove several elements beyond a reasonable doubt. There are dozens or hundreds of rules surrounding each element. It can be real tricky.

I'm "getting it", I'm not agreeing with your train of thought.

How can actions be irrelevant where the law is concerned, especially concerning a minor child?

What about religious views that condone adults having sex with children? Is that constitutionally protected religious activity? Is the sex act with the child not the issue?

Apparently, there is recent case law in Wisconsin to back up my position here, I just found this moments ago:

Parents in prayer death get 6 months in jail | Gainesville.com | The Gainesville Sun | Gainesville, FL

Parents in prayer death get 6 months in jail

By ROBERT IMRIE Associated Press Writer

Published: Tuesday, October 6, 2009 at 9:28 p.m.

Last Modified: Tuesday, October 6, 2009 at 9:28 p.m.

A central Wisconsin couple who prayed rather than seek medical care for their 11-year-old dying daughter were sentenced Tuesday to six months in jail and 10 years probation in the girl's death.

Dale and Leilani Neumann could have received up to 25 years in prison for the March 2008 death of Madeline Neumann, who died of an undiagnosed but treatable form of diabetes. They were convicted of second-degree reckless homicide in separate trials earlier this year.

In sentencing the couple, Marathon County Circuit Court Judge Vincent Howard said the Neumanns were "very good people, raising their family who made a bad decision, a reckless decision."

"God probably works through other people," Howard told the parents, "some of them doctors."

The case was believed to be the first of its kind in Wisconsin involving faith healing in which someone died and another person was charged with a homicide.

Prosecutors contended the Neumanns recklessly killed their youngest of four children by ignoring obvious symptoms of severe illness as she became too weak to speak, eat, drink or walk. They said the couple had a legal duty to take their daughter to a doctor but relied totally on prayer for healing. The girl, known as Kara, died on the floor of the family's rural Weston home as people surrounded her and prayed. Someone finally called 911 after she stopped breathing.

"We are here today because to some, you made Kara a martyr to your faith," Howard told the parents.

In testimony at trial and in videotaped interviews with police, the parents said they believe healing comes from God and that they never expected their daughter to die.

During the sentencing hearing, Leilani Neumann, 41, told the judge her family is loving and forgiving and has wrongly been portrayed as religious zealots.

"I do not regret trusting truly in the Lord for my daughter's health," she said. "Did we know she had a fatal illness? No. Did we act to the best of our knowledge? Yes."

Dale Neumann, 47, read from the Bible and told the judge that he loved his daughter.

"I am guilty of trusting my Lord's wisdom completely. ... Guilty of asking for heavenly intervention. Guilty of following Jesus Christ when the whole world does not understand. Guilty of obeying my God," he said.

The Neumanns held each other as Howard sentenced them, a Bible on the table nearby and their three teenage children sitting behind them in the front row of the courtroom.

Prosecutors had asked for a three-year suspended prison sentence and 10 years probation. Defense attorneys had sought four years probation.

The judge ordered the couple to serve one month in jail each year for six years so the parents can "think about Kara and what God wants you to learn from this." One parent would serve the term in March and the other in September. Howard stayed the jail sentences while the couple's convictions are appealed.

As part of their probation, the parents must allow a public health nurse to examine their two underage children at least once every three months and must immediately take their children to a doctor for any serious injuries.

Assistant District Attorney LaMont Jacobson said justice was served by the sentences, but he was disappointed the parents never said they were sorry for what happened.

"They allowed Kara to die because they got themselves too caught up in the misguided belief that they were being tested by God," the prosecutor said.

Dale Neumann, who once studied to be a Pentecostal minister, told reporters the couple continues to trust in God.

"We live by faith," he said after the sentencing. "We are completely content with what the Lord has allowed to come down, but he is not done yet."

[Midtowner]

I'm "getting it", I'm not agreeing with your train of thought.

How can actions be irrelevant where the law is concerned, especially concerning a minor child?

Imagine you're driving your car. As always, you are driving carefully, attentively -- fully meeting the legal standard of reasonable care. Suddenly, a man jumps out from behind a trash can and you run over and kill him.

Even though you were driving the car and did the killing here, you were still not negligent in any way. Thus, you are not guilty of homicide because you didn't have the right frame of mind to do it.

What about religious views that condone adults having sex with children? Is that constitutionally protected religious activity? Is the sex act with the child not the issue?

That's different. You'd apply the Smith test to that which I mentioned before. Is that law a neutral law of general applicability? If yes, bingo. The difference is that it's not punishing a religious state of mind, it's prosecuting sex with a child. Further, statutory rape laws tend to be conduct crimes, so it doesn't make one whit of difference whether or not she really looked 21+ and had a fake ID and you met her in a bar and she told you she was 25. In those cases, the act itself is all you need to put the bad person in the pokey. Not the case for homicide.

Apparently, there is recent case law in Wisconsin to back up my position here, I just found this moments ago:

That doesn't appear to be an appellate decision. Generally speaking, District Courts won't stick their necks out and declare too many things unconstitutional. I'm not familiar enough with Wisconsin law to be able to tell you at what point the defense can challenge the indictment as unconstitutional on its face and the article doesn't say whether that happened. At any rate, it's not case law, it's a news story. I imagine you could find case law going both ways though.

[HVAC Instructor]

I realize this is not exactly an apples to apples comparison here, but it can loosely be argued in support of my position, at least to some extent:

Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the government has broad authority to regulate the actions and treatment of children. Parental authority is not absolute and can be permissibly restricted if doing so is in the interests of a child's welfare. While children share many of the rights of adults, they face different potential harms from similar activities.

A Jehovah's Witness woman named Sarah Prince was convicted for violating child labor laws. She was the guardian of a nine-year old girl, Betty M. Simmons, whom she had brought into a downtown area to preach on the streets. This preaching involved distributing literature in exchange for voluntary contributions. The child labor laws that she was charged with violating stipulated that no boys under 12 and no girls under 18 were permitted to sell literature or other goods on public thoroughfares.

There were three complaints filed against Prince:

1. Refusal to disclose her child's identity and age to a public officer whose duty was to enforce the statutes;

2. Furnishing the girl with magazines, knowing she was to sell them unlawfully, that is, on the street; and

3. As child's custodian, permitting her to work contrary to law.

Both Prince and her husband were ordained ministers and commonly took their children out to distribute religious literature. Prince argued that the state's child labor laws violated her Fourteenth Amendment rights to exercise her religion and her equal protection rights, in particular because the children themselves were ministers of their religion as well.

While this is not a negligent death case due to faith healing, it is still an arguably(I readily admit) relevant decision involving religious beliefs where children are concerned.

Another case that may make it to the federal appeals level is Pennsylvania v. Nixon, 1998 WL 640425 (Pa Super). Maybe you have a Lexis Nexis account access and can look this up. All I could get on the internet is this article discussing the case:

Justification by Faith | Hastings Center Report, The | Find Articles at BNET

Some, like you, believe it dangerous to put religion on trial, and I understand that. However, others believe religion to be inherently dangerous, especially given cases like we are discussing here involving the welfare of children who cannot make life and death decisions for themselves.

[Midtowner]

Some, like you, believe it dangerous to put religion on trial, and I understand that. However, others believe religion to be inherently dangerous, especially given cases like we are discussing here involving the welfare of children who cannot make life and death decisions for themselves.

What I object to, more accurately described is not the punishment of religious behavior which does not conform to the law. It is the assignation of criminal liability to religious thought. You aren't thinking of crimes as elemental things, so I can see how you are missing the point.

Now, if there's a law which says that a parent has to procure health care for their child anytime that child is sick, we may have an issue, although I'd argue that statute in itself violates the fundamental liberty interest in custody, care and control of the child by the custodial parent. We don't have that issue though. As far as I know, the only charge is that the kid died, the parents were negligent for following through with their religious beliefs, thus culpable.

And I don't have a Pennsylvania Lexis or Westlaw account. That'd cost a buch of money and since I don't practice in Pennsylvania, that just ain't gonna happen. That cite you gave is a Westlaw Cite, is there a public cite for that, or is it unpublished? If it's unpublished, it has no binding effect on anyone but the litigants and isn't really all that persuasive to anyone.

[HVAC Instructor]

To me, this "religious beliefs" defense seems much like the "mental illness" defense. Both address the state of mind at the commission of the crime. There is no argument a crime was committed, only that a certain state of mind experienced at the time of the crime should relieve the accused of having to stand trial in the case of mental illness, or excuse the crime in the case of religious beliefs.

One might argue that religious zelotry excercised to the point of endangering human life is indeed a form of mental illness. Those persons ruled mentally ill can be committed to mental institutions; should the same be considered for the religiously ill zelot who committs the same crime?

Another question that comes to mind is the phrase "spare the rod and spoil the child." Could this be used as a legal defense for child abuse?

I believe that religion as a legal defense is a dangerous precident and hopefully more logical, secular thinking judges within the appellate courts system will eventually put an end to it. There should be no "sacred" thoughts that turn an action that is a crime for the secular population into religious freedom and rights for others who claim such beliefs.

And one final question that I would be interested in learning the answer to concerning the OP:

Did the mother of this child in question give birth to her child in a hospital or other medical facility, or with the assistance of trained medical professionals? If this child was born under those circumstances, that would seem to hurt the parents faith healing argument.

[ronronnie1]

I'm not even going to argue with Midtowner, lest I be bombarded with an impromptu online law schooling.

But as a non lawyer, I could have sworn this isn't the first time this sorta thing has happened. I say throw the book at these kooks, and sew it up down there as to insure they don't reproduce anymore.

[Midtowner]

The key point of distinction there is that there is no constitutional protection to freely practice your insanity. For religion, there's the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment.

[ronronnie1]

I get what you're saying, Midtowner, but, when a person's free exercise of their religion harms someone (as the kid obviously was), the Free Exercise Clause doesn't apply. What if my religion demanded that my kids get no medical care even after a serious injury? If my religion stated that medical care is Devil's work, and my kids bleed to death, am I not going to be held responsible by the law? I swear there have been situations just like this in the past, and the parents didn't get to hide behind the Free Exercise Clause.

[Midtowner]

I get what you're saying, Midtowner, but, when a person's free exercise of their religion harms someone (as the kid obviously was), the Free Exercise Clause doesn't apply.

Really? Cool. Can I just make stuff up out of nothing like you just did?

What if my religion demanded that my kids get no medical care even after a serious injury? If my religion stated that medical care is Devil's work, and my kids bleed to death, am I not going to be held responsible by the law? I swear there have been situations just like this in the past, and the parents didn't get to hide behind the Free Exercise Clause.

Citations? And even so, what you are doing is interfering with the parent-child relationship, something which has been held before to be Constitutionally sacrosanct in many respects (see Troxell v. Granville, holding that there is a fundamental liberty interest with respect to custody, care and control of the minor child by the custodial parent).

I feel like a broken record here in explaining that there are different standards for different sorts of crimes and cases. If the state in your example filed a deprived action, they could have taken the kids out of the home because the parents' behavior, if it was allowed to continue would have resulted in irreparable harm to the child. Once the child is dead though, we no longer get to use that standard. We switch to homicide crimes. Those, unlike deprived cases require a requisite mental state. I don't think, no matter how nutty the religion is, that the state has any business telling you that as a matter of law, your religious views are invalid or crazy or whatever.

It may seem like hair splitting and it may seem to you that I'm taking inconsistent positions, but I'm not. My view of the law is not something which is outcome driven -- I don't care how cases come out (unless I'm being paid to and then I can take either side because that's how I roll), but I do care that the law is followed and that constitutional rights are respected.

What you and HVAC are doing, in my eyes, is to ask that the court throw Constitutional rights aside simply so they can criminally punish what they think to be offensive conduct. I think that's a dangerous path to tread down.

[HVAC Instructor]

It may seem like hair splitting and it may seem to you that I'm taking inconsistent positions, but I'm not. My view of the law is not something which is outcome driven -- I don't care how cases come out (unless I'm being paid to and then I can take either side because that's how I roll), but I do care that the law is followed and that constitutional rights are respected.

What you and HVAC are doing, in my eyes, is to ask that the court throw Constitutional rights aside simply so they can criminally punish what they think to be offensive conduct. I think that's a dangerous path to tread down.

I know where you are coming from and fully understand "rolling" where one is paid. I have represented both union and management positions in disciplinary and contract negotiations and arbitrations for many years, so that concept is easy to understand. I also cared that the contract, and contract law was followed, and I did the absolute best job I could every time on every issue, eventually from both sides of the table as the years passed.

As to constitutional rights, what about the rights of the children of these zealots who hide behind religion and the first amendment? Abandoning reasonableness and common sense in the name of religion, and as a result, causing harm and death to a child violates the constitutional rights of the child. So now, who's rights do we decide has greater value?

While in your view, it is dangerous to challenge religious rights, in my view, and increasingly in societies view, granting immunity to cause harm to others in the name of religious rights is far more dangerous.

[gmwise]

You know that this makes one think of all those parents that is not going to immunized their kids for the flu both seasonal and the h1n1.

[Midtowner]

As to constitutional rights, what about the rights of the children of these zealots who hide behind religion and the first amendment? Abandoning reasonableness and common sense in the name of religion, and as a result, causing harm and death to a child violates the constitutional rights of the child. So now, who's rights do we decide has greater value?

The Constitution doesn't grant rights to citizens to be protected from other citizens. It just functions to prohibit or empower the government to act in certain areas.

That said, protecting kids from nutso parents is something the states can legitimately do through the police powers. And as I've said, in this action, they could have snatched the kid from the parents and maybe even provided medical care. They didn't do that though and now the kid is dead. Dead people have no rights. We're now talking about the rights of the parents to freely express their religion and also the fact that the state lacks the power to say one religion or no religion is better than another or something (the Establishment Clause). Breaking the Establishment Clause and violating the Free Exercise Clause is what'll happen if this prosecution were to be allowed to go forward. Since the question would be that whether as a matter of law, practicing these religious beliefs was negligent.

The kid is dead, so you have to separate that out. That's only relevant to the extent that we're talking about a homicide.

While in your view, it is dangerous to challenge religious rights, in my view, and increasingly in societies view, granting immunity to cause harm to others in the name of religious rights is far more dangerous.

Well, that depends on what you think dangerous is. I think it's dangerous for us to trust the government to tell us which beliefs are and are not acceptable. It's the allowance of Orwellian thoughtcrimes which I'm concerned about.