As reported by ABC news, an Oregon couple, by offering up prayer instead of what would have been an easy treatment by medical professionals, allowed their infant daughter to die. Or, put another way, murdered their infant daughter.
Carl and Raylene Worthington, the killers (should we really call them parents?) happen to belong to the same church, the Followers of Christ Church, as Jeffrey and Marci Beagley, who were indicted on charges of criminally negligent homicide in October, 2008, after they attempted only prayer healing for their 16-year-old son, Neil Beagley, instead of medically treating him for what was an easily treatable illness. Apparently, this church as been the catalyst for at least twenty other child deaths as a result of applying faith healing techniques, when every one of them could have been easily cured with proper medical treatment.
Although my first reaction to these heinous acts is to shrug and hope the result is the direct or indirect thinning of the herd, my more contemplative criticism is not based on what the parents or church have done, but what our laws and the courts have allowed and currently allow. Specifically, the fact that a decade ago, during the events that led investigators to believe that twenty children affiliated with the Followers of Christ Church had died because of that affiliation, the existing Oregon law allowed for claims that religious beliefs prevented defendants from seeking medical help — the “spiritual healing defense.” In 1999, the Oregon state legislature, upon hearing about the twenty children, changed the law to bar such claims.
The original language of the defense:
Manslaughter in the second degree is a Class B felony.
{ – (3) It is an affirmative defense to a charge of violating
subsection (1)(c)(B) of this section that the child or dependent
person was under care or treatment solely by spiritual means
pursuant to the religious beliefs or practices of the child or
person or the parent or guardian of the child or person.1
But a lot of good that does when the law currently allows the same spiritual healing defense to be used to reduce sentencing: (emphasis mine)
137.712. (1)(a) Notwithstanding ORS 137.700 and 137.707, when a person is convicted of { + manslaughter in the second degree as defined in ORS 163.125, + } … the court may impose a sentence according to the rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission that is less than the minimum sentence that otherwise may be required by ORS 137.700 or 137.707 if the court, on the record at sentencing, makes the findings set forth in subsection (2) of this section and finds that a substantial and compelling reason under the
rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission justifies the lesser sentence. …
(2) A conviction is subject to subsection (1) of this section only if the sentencing court finds on the record by a preponderance of the evidence:
{ + (a) If the conviction is for manslaughter in the second degree:
(A) That the defendant is the mother or father of the victim;
(B) That the death of the victim was the result of an injury or illness that was not caused by the defendant;
(C) That the defendant treated the injury or illness solely by spiritual treatment in accordance with the religious beliefs or practices of the defendant and based on a good faith belief that spiritual treatment would bring about the victim’s recovery from the injury or illness….
In short, what it means is that if the court believes the parents believed that the spiritual healing would have worked, then the court can reduce the sentence of parents who murder their children based on their religious beliefs. Well, if you could call it “spiritual treatment,” which can really include just about anything, apparently.
This is clearly a law respecting an establishment of religion, a blatant violation of the First Amendment. Of course, the counter argument is that the First Amendment also prohibits the government from interfering with people’s ability to practice their religion. What the counter argument and those who would use it (obviously those who got that law enacted in the first place) fail to acknowledge is that we have employed our government to protect an even greater self-created right — the right not to be killed by fellow citizens. That greater right trumps any defense of religious preference when it comes to murder. (Yes, technically, it’s “manslaughter,” but I don’t view it that way).
What we all need to do, with swiftness and fervor, is contact our state representatives to find out whether our own states have similar laws unconstitutionally favoring religion and letting murderers off with potentially lighter sentences, and, if so, we need to tell them to work toward eliminating such laws. If there aren’t any such laws (doubtful), ask your legislator to ensure that none ever get passed, because such a breach of the separation of church and state is an affront to everyone (even the religious), especially when those laws favor the most vile of people. As Daylight Atheism skillfully argues, No Religious Exemptions from Child Abuse Laws.
Do you think the Followers of Christ Church should be tax exempt? If you live in Oregon, contact your state representatives and demand that the church lose its tax exempt status. The purpose of allowing religious organizations a tax exempt status is the flawed idea that the church is somehow benefiting society. The Followers of Christ Church does the reverse. It doesn’t deserve a tax break. Everyone in every state, in every country, should be demanding that churches be taxed.
Don’t let these murderers or anyone else use religion as justification for their actions.
—
Input from readers:
Blackstar9000, on Reddit, says:
The article leaves out the two clauses that follow:
(D) That no other person previously under the defendant’s care has died or sustained significant physical injury as a result of or despite the use of spiritual treatment, regardless of whether the spiritual treatment was used alone or in conjunction with medical care; and (E) That the defendant does not have a previous conviction for a crime listed in subsection (4) of this section or for criminal mistreatment in the second degree. + }
Those clauses shed some light on why there’s a provision, I’d say. It’s basically a learning curve that says, if you’ve been taught to believe that faith healing works, and there’s nothing in your past that should have demonstrated to you that it doesn’t, a lesser sentence may be warranted simply because you weren’t fully aware of the damage you could be causing. It isn’t a get out of jail free card, but if a person’s been cloistered all their life and might not reasonably have enough experience to know the consequences of their action, they might need at least some legal protections.
My response:
Why couldn’t there be a general provision indicating that if the defendant lacked the knowledge or mental capacity to understand that a particular method of treatment would not likely be successful, then the sentence could be reduced based on that fact? Why not that instead of the direct reference to religious belief? If the principle is, as you suggest, whether a person reasonably possesses the knowledge or know-how to treat someone with proper care, then why explicitly restrict that to the “spiritual”? Are there never any instances where non-spiritual upbringing can mislead someone?
Any takers?
Blackstar9000 replies:
Those are all valid question, and it’s way beyond my competence to give anything more than a reasonable guess. I will say this, though: Generally, laws of this sort arise as a response to particular instances rather than as a consideration of future possibilities. It’s a fair bet that this piece of legislation was written after a specific, precedent-setting case, and that the circumstances of the case itself did much to dictate the form that the legislation ultimately took. In other words, it specifies the religious belief because the religious belief is what the court has had to deal with in the past. Caution probably also played a part; not all judges and legislators are willing to introduce sweeping provisions without first having seen how a given set of circumstances will play out in an actual case.
Having said all of that — and, of course, this is all lay interpretation — while the law cited is setting forth an exception, the sense I get from it is that it’s spelling it out in order to provide restrictions on that exception. In other words, legislators could have laid out a blanket exception for religion: “If you’ve got a note from your priest, we’ll let it slide.” Instead, what they’re saying is that, in certain circumstances, a person’s religious background does mitigate some of the severity that would otherwise be warranted, but the court has to retain some control over how it’s determined that those circumstances have been met. What those provisions are looking for, it seems to me, is some relatively reliable guarantee that the parents weren’t being intentionally malicious or even simply callous in their neglect. The provisions likely aren’t a perfect instrument for gauging that, but in dealing with matters of judgment like that of deciding whether or not someone was a caring parent, the legal system has to traffic in evidence that is more or less tangible.
Where that’s true, ie. where caring and concerned parents have lost a child through their own neglect, then any punishment the court can mete out is likely to pale next to the suffering the parents already feel.
Tags: abuse, Amendment, Atheism, Beagley, belief, children, Christ, church, citizen, Constitution, criminal, death, demon, Eden, establishment, faith, First Amendment, Government, Law, legal, medical, prayer, Religion, rules, spirit, tax, war
Why pussyfoot around? They not only refused to get her treatment, they prevented her from getting treatment elsewhere. In a nutshell, they imprisoned her and tortured her to death.
Exactly. And, to top it all off, they’re trying to get out of any conviction at all, based on their religious belief defense.
If someone truly believed that a little green fairy told them that if they starved their sick child, the child would be cured, that person would not be given any special treatment. They might be able to plead insanity, but they would be punished for murder under the full extent of the law. Why is it considered more respectable if you call the voice in your head “God?”
I had always assumed that the answer to this question involved what conservatives love to call “judicial activism.” I am appalled to see it actually being codified in statute.
I would argue that the people here should not receive a lesser punishment based on the extra clauses.
If members of their church died from lack of medical attention based on the belief in spiritual healing (which you state has happened 20 times), then they should have reasonably known that lack of medical attention could cause death.
Society has absolutely no reason to condone action or inaction which harms (or in this case murders) children.
This is no less of a murder than if they had cut their own child’s throat.
If this were a cult or a less mainstream religion the person would have no hope of pulling this defense off.
What if you replaced “Christianity” with “Hoodoo” and “Jesus” with “The Great Django” do you think most people would accept this excuse?
We must respect free-exercise, but there is a point where society cannot tolerate practices that harm human beings.
If children are dying I think that’s a pretty big red flag that the religious practice is beyond what society should tolerate.
A few points:
1) It seems odd to me that you claim to be so indignant about the actions of these people when in the third paragraph of this article you stated, “Although my first reaction to these heinous acts is to shrug and hope the result is the direct or indirect thinning of the herd…” and further relay that you only really became upset when you saw a law that in your opinion was unconstitutional. It seems you either had an sudden bout of empathy for the poor child halfway through writing this piece, or are extremely disingenuous and simply using this feigned outrage to further your political agenda.
2) Regarding your assessment of the case on U.S. Constitutional grounds it seems that your claim is a bit underdeveloped. You stated that this law “unconstitutionally favored religion” and that it amounted to a violation of the Establishment Clause. There is a strong case to be made that this is more of an “accommodation” rather than an “endorsement” of religion. In Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the Supreme Court held that religious organizations could discriminate on the basis of religion for their secular nonprofit activities. The Court’s reasoning was that this was not so much of promoting religion (i.e., establishing) as it was allowing religions to make decisions without Government interference. A similar claim can be made in this instance. The law providing a religious mitigation of sentence is merely an accommodation of the faith healers rather than an establishment of their religion.
3) The legal difference between manslaughter and murder, as you seem to be aware, is intent. I fail to see how by this standard you could color this claim as murder, so that leads me to believe you must have some alternate standard. I would be curious to know exactly what standard you are operating under when you make the claim that this is murder.
Ben,
First and foremost I don’t like harm. Basically killing a child is harm. However I’m also a consequentialist of sorts and I believe to some extent that sometimes subjectively bad things happen that end up improving the lives of more people in the long run. I’m not advocating the killing of these children for any reason. But there can be a perceived, albeit grotesque, overall benefit.
That it happens at all disturbs me. I’d much prefer the evil parents to perish. I think that’s just understood. The reason for this article is that I believe that, indirectly, our government facilitates a way that these people can avoid proper justice for the consequences of their actions. More specifically that the basis for this cheat is religious belief.
Regarding accommodation versus endorsement, when the government facilitates a reduction in a criminal sentence specifically because the convicted had relied on religion, specifically, that’s more than accommodation. We’re not talking taxes or revenue or easements or subway ads. We’re talking about homicide. Even coming faintly close to creating an exception for religion in homicide cases should be, if it’s not, unconstitutional. I’m not sure your case, which regards employment, would be a specific enough precedent.
Take your words, and just think about what you’re saying: “The law providing a religious mitigation of sentence is merely an accommodation of the faith healers….” Unbelievable. Please tell me, regardless of a Supreme Court case not exactly on point, why the U.S. should allow any accommodation for religion, let alone one that treats religious people with essentially a standard of fairness and justice that differs from the way everyone else is treated.
As for murder, my thinking is that it falls under felony murder, which increases manslaughter to murder in cases where a felony is being committed (in this case, felony child abuse), and a death occurs. Note that I’m not familiar with Oregon law, and I’m only throwing that theory out there to show that it’s not impossible to call a manslaughter a murder. It depends on the jurisdiction and other factors. My original thoughts, above, were that saying “manslaughter” to describe their acts was insufficient, in a more layperson sense. I wasn’t actually arguing there (notice my lack of argument there?) that it should be considered murder under the law. Although, one person in Reddit suggested that we should treat crimes that have a religious basis with even more severity.
I don’t see any reason a special clause needs to be added to give someone a reduced sentence. I think the insanity defense would be perfectly adequate (although something may need to be done to make sure one can claim insanity for insane religious beliefs). If a defendant is able to plausibly argue that their religion effectively made them crazy by filling their head with insane lies, then I think that they should be sentenced leniently. They’d clearly not be allowed to go back to their old religion, and possibly not even a similar religion which probably violates first amendment rights.
Inflammatory article; calling them killers equates them to an entire different matter. For a thinking mind it seems a big mistake to make comparisons. It’s not the same thing at all; should people be punished for being stupid equally as those who deliberately commit crimes? For example: your article.
ijostl,
If I should reasonably expect that my article would cause the imminent deaths of others, then I should probably be punished.
Perhaps you should consider abandoning this comparison model you seem to hold in such esteem. First you compare stupidity to murder, now you create this ludicrous contextual framework trying to justify your comparison. You don’t expect to be punished for writing even if it did cause a death.
The point I was attempting to convey was how comparing stupidity with murder is wrong. These people did not actively murder their loved one, yet you compare it with one who would deliberately commit murder. You’re wrong to do so and here’s why; because if some evil person broke into your home and murdered your loved one deliberately you would feel infinitely more loathing towards that person and would never again make such a lame comparison.
It’s easy for you to type away and ramble off with your reactive emotionally charged rebuttals but in a real life situation where you were the one dealing with a murderer you would never, ever think of comparing that scum with some ignorant religious people.
Now you have the sheriff’s badge around these parts, all I’m asking from you is that you consider omitting lame comparisons for your own benefit.
Or… like I said, you’re deliberately being inflammatory for some sort of personal objective.
[...] in My Primordial Soup! — What’s really the State of Christmas? — Procrustes asks, Why is there a Legal Provision Allowing a Lighter Sentence Based on Religious Beliefs? — If you hadn’t already heard, Being Religious is Like Eating Sand — Laura and [...]
[...] belief for public office, hate crimes based on religion, general inability to criticize religion, lighter sentences), but when society doesn’t agree with someone’s specific actions, it condemns those [...]
You cannot tell me these people weren’t aware their child would die without proper medical treatment, sorry. No one’s faith is that strong, no one that naive or innocent. They had naive hope perhaps but in the back of their minds they knew there was a risk. That is manslaughter, at the very least.