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.
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.
