Guilty or Not Guilty

[beezer123]

Here's one for you all to debate over

A man was found guilty of his daughters death because he prayed rather than taking her to hospital.

US father guilty of prayer death
US father guilty of prayer death
Man found guilty over death of his daughter for praying rather than seeking medical help.
pa.press.net
A man accused of killing his 11-year-old diabetic daughter by praying instead of seeking medical care has been found guilty of second-degree reckless homicide.
Dale Neumann, 47, was convicted over the March 23, 2008, death of his daughter, Madeline, from undiagnosed diabetes.
Prosecutors argued he should have rushed the girl to a hospital because she could not walk, talk, eat or drink.
Instead, Madeline died on the floor of the family's rural home as people surrounded her and prayed. Someone called an ambulance when she stopped breathing.
Neumann stared at the jury as the verdict was read out in the courtroom in Wausau, Wisconsin.
Defence lawyer Jay Kronenwetter said they will appeal against the verdict.
Neumann, who once studied to be a Pentecostal minister, testified that he believed God would heal his daughter and he never expected her to die. God promises in the Bible to heal, he said.
"If I go to the doctor, I am putting the doctor before God," Neumann testified. "I am not believing what he said he would do."
The father testified that he thought Madeline had the flu or a fever, and several relatives and family friends said they also did not realise how ill she was.
Leilani Neumann, 41, was convicted of the same charge in the spring.

What would you do in the jury's position.
It is a very hard decision to make as it has religion tied up in the case.


It seems like a sad case to be honest. It shows just how strong some peoples faith can be, so much so that it cost his daughter her life.

[Amiethest]

Guilty. He impressed his own views upon a minor, resulting in her death, which needent have happened. He's as guilty as if he had killed her while mentally ill. He believed God would save her, yes. The madmad who blungens a person to death to save them is also guilty.

[kevan321]

I wouldn't really say guilty.

Just a sad story. Don't think I'd be able to let him go to jail for it.

[mcgrou]

Originally Posted by Amiethest

Guilty. He impressed his own views upon a minor, resulting in her death, which needent have happened.

That ^

[barcelonic]

I've recently started keeping a list of news stories which show religion is bad. This went on the list and I thought a lot about this one.

Firstly you should know I don't believe this man should go to jail. As far as I can tell he loved his daughter and genuinely believed he was doing the best thing for her.

Secondly, and in contrast to what Amiethest said, I believe that an act or intention is either right or wrong but an outcome is not. If this man wouldn't have been prosecuted for doing what he did had she survived then it is unfair to prosecute him now. I recommend watching The Exorcism of Emily Rose, which is about a priest who is prosecuted for encouraging a girl to stop taking her medication because he believed she was possessed by a demon. It's a similar premise to this.

Personally I feel that this is a case which shows how religion can be a terrible thing. If you look at the USA it is a deeply religious country whose people are enslaved by religion. The lobbyists front two candidates for president, back one and pour on the religion and the candidate wins because he's a man of God.

You are encouraged to lead a religious life and many schools teach creationism to young children, yet as soon as you step in a court of law, psychiatrists office or a medical clinic, God no longer exists. If you tell people God speaks to you they think you are crazy.

You are encouraged to pray for better days, safe journeys etc... but if you tell somebody you prayed for a miracle and it came to happen they think you're crazy.

Clearly this is a story of religion's strangehold over one man, and how blind and unquestioning faith led him to genuinely believe that prayer was the best solution for his loved one.

Get arrested for being drunk and they send you to AA meetings. Get arrested for being violent and they send you to anger management. Get arrested for sexual harrassment and they send you to discrimination classes. Oh how I wish they would have classes which discourage religious faith. For if they did then this man could attend it and not have to face the harsh American penal system.

[Harvez]

He was found guilty in a court of law and rightly so.
Another reason why (I) think religion is in some cases stupid.
I respect anyones religion but its does not mean i have to like or agree with it, to let your daughter die thinking god will help is utter crap, not one single shread of evidence has or ever will be avilable that god has cured anyone with a serious health problem.

[crispyste]

Originally Posted by beezer123

Here's one for you all to debate over

A man was found guilty of his daughters death because he prayed rather than taking her to hospital.




What would you do in the jury's position.
It is a very hard decision to make as it has religion tied up in the case.


It seems like a sad case to be honest. It shows just how strong some peoples faith can be, so much so that it cost his daughter her life.

I think not guilty. As has been said this man genuinely believed he thought he was doing the right thing by praying. Although it sound ridiculous to me that praying could help something like that, as it apparently sounded ridiculous to the judge/jury, that doesn't mean that he saw it the same way.

Originally Posted by Amiethest

Guilty. He impressed his own views upon a minor, resulting in her death, which needent have happened.

You could argue that the court, or the state are guilty of impressing their own views on the general public by saying the praying is not the way to go about it. How do we know for sure we're right?
Phew, this is quite a deep debate. The flip side of it is of course that the story we hear may not cover all the facts. Maybe prayer was a convenient excuse for this man, when really he was showing gross neglegence? In which case he would be guilty.

[the_icks]

This mans faith was strong, I don't share his opinion, but why should a person believe in an all merciful god and not expect to be shown an example of his mercy.

What I do expect the man to be, now that he has tested his faith, is just as strong in his belief and should he find himself in the same situation would do the same without hesitation.

I am appalled at the guilty verdict.

[bmh16]

Originally Posted by the_icks

This mans faith was strong, I don't share his opinion, but why should a person believe in an all merciful god and not expect to be shown an example of his mercy.

What I do expect the man to be, now that he has tested his faith, is just as strong in his belief and should he find himself in the same situation would do the same without hesitation.

I am appalled at the guilty verdict.

Ditto this. What a sad case and definitely not a guilty verdict for me. As said this is a very sad case though

[the_icks]

Originally Posted by harvez

He was found guilty in a court of law and rightly so.
Another reason why (I) think religion is in some cases stupid.
I respect anyones religion but its does not mean i have to like or agree with it, to let your daughter die thinking god will help is utter crap, not one single shread of evidence has or ever will be avilable that god has cured anyone with a serious health problem.

he did bring his son back from the dead!

[Harvez]

hard proof and not a best selling novel as evidence please.

[the_icks]

I have just ordered the unauthorised autobiography from amazon!

God: The Ultimate Autobiography and Satan: The Hiss and Tell Memoirs: Amazon.co.uk: Jeremy Pascall, Katherine Lamb, Martin Brown: Books

[the_icks]

no offence but this song always cheers me up!!

YouTube - Atheist Tabernacle Choir

[mattyb]

Barcelonic, whenever I read your posts I feel immediately stupid - you're rather eloquent and form wonderful reasoned arguments to read.

My view however is that if we allow a man to go free, the justification being his faith meant he believed he could save her, then we are at the thin end of the wedge. Sitting back and watching someone die whilst crossing one's fingers and concentrating really really hard on helping her is tantamount to murder.

State and religion are separate for such a reason I suppose. If he was found not guilty then I think it would only be a matter of time before other crimes and criminals could claim similar defence.

Having Jesus as a witness is a dangerous thing in my eyes.

[bmh16]

Originally Posted by harvez

hard proof and not a best selling novel as evidence please.

lol whenever i see your posts it confuses me as that was my avatar for a year or so on here so i think at first it's a post by me

[Harvez]

recycling is good

[Larkino]

Originally Posted by bmh16

lol whenever i see your posts it confuses me as that was my avatar for a year or so on here so i think at first it's a post by me

Same here, I keep thinkings it's you posting.

[barcelonic]

Originally Posted by bmh16

lol whenever i see your posts it confuses me as that was my avatar for a year or so on here so i think at first it's a post by me

lol ye i nearly fell for that twice wen u had it hehe

Originally Posted by mattyb

Barcelonic, whenever I read your posts I feel immediately stupid - you're rather eloquent and form wonderful reasoned arguments to read.

My view however is that if we allow a man to go free, the justification being his faith meant he believed he could save her, then we are at the thin end of the wedge. Sitting back and watching someone die whilst crossing one's fingers and concentrating really really hard on helping her is tantamount to murder.

State and religion are separate for such a reason I suppose. If he was found not guilty then I think it would only be a matter of time before other crimes and criminals could claim similar defence.

Having Jesus as a witness is a dangerous thing in my eyes.

Funnily enough I was debating the issue of euthanasia with the director of Right To Life, today in fact, and it got me thinking about what you've just got me thinking about.

You see, my belief is that a crime should be judged on an individual basis. I don't believe it is right to penalise one person in order to set a precedent. Yes, if you set an example it can prevent future incidents from taking place, but the person who is made an example of is no more or less guilty than another person who happened to commit the same crime at a more forgiving time. It is essentially a lottery, and that is a word that shouldn't be present when discussing justice.

The reason this came up in my e-mail debate earlier today is because this woman claimed that every disability rights group in the UK is opposed to assisted suicide because if it is legalised it will lead to people choosing to end their lives simply because they feel they are being a burden on their families. I argued that something is either right or it is wrong, and I don't believe we should take into account future actions of those with their own responsibility. Even if it leads to euthanasia for the wrong reasons, the future outcome of changing a law should not impact on whether or not someone is a criminal in the present for a crime committed in the past.

I'd also like to add though, returning to the issue at hand (lol), that I personally cannot accept that any Christian is going to be more likely to do this in future if this man is set free. It may seem that way, but you have to remember that this man did not account for the legal ramifications of his actions - the only thing he was concerned about was the welfare of his child. He was not thinking, "well, if she dies Im in trouble." The thought of her dying was not an option, he believed his God would save her.

I would even go as far as to suggest that if this man was a Haitian immigrant practising voodoo and went to a witch doctor to save his daughter, the consequences may have been somewhat different.

But put yourself in the position of a loving Christian father with a sick little girl. Would you be inclined to choose prayer over medicine because state law has shown leniency towards that course of action, whereas had there not been such a ruling previously you would have chosen medicine? Or instead would you be thinking solely about the health of your child, and as long as I can get her better I do not care about whatever consequences?

If you lived in a world of religious fanatics, where doctors were laughed at and state law considered you negligent were you to take your child to a doctor instead of a priest, would you take her to a doctor because of a previous court decision, or would you take her to the doctor because you love her and it's clearly the correct thing to do (in spite of all the idiots who think otherwise)?

[refmaster]

If you lived in a world of religious fanatics, where doctors were laughed at and state law considered you negligent were you to take your child to a doctor instead of a priest, would you take her to a doctor because of a previous court decision, or would you take her to the doctor because you love her and it's clearly the correct thing to do (in spite of all the idiots who think otherwise)?

I think that ^^ a very good point. however, I believe that even in a religion fanatic world, people would still take the child to the doctor. Unless it could be proved that religion had a higher success rate.

also you have to remember that not so long back (a couple hundred years) people kinda lived in a religion dominated world, and yet medical studies still broke through that barrier.

[barcelonic]

Originally Posted by refmaster

I think that ^^ a very good point. however, I believe that even in a religion fanatic world, people would still take the child to the doctor. Unless it could be proved that religion had a higher success rate.

also you have to remember that not so long back (a couple hundred years) people kinda lived in a religion dominated world, and yet medical studies still broke through that barrier.

Yes of course. What I was just trying to point out is that you would take your child to wherever you felt is was best to take her - your decision wouldn't be swayed by the fact a court ruling had previously set a man free after making the wrong choice.