Lawyers to ask Wis. court to rule in prayer death. (EDITED)

[Adsos Letter]

I saw this in LBN; thought it might fit here:

Source: newstimes.com (AP)

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — A couple who prayed while their daughter slowly died of diabetes will try Tuesday to persuade the state Supreme Court to overturn their homicide convictions, arguing state law protects them from prosecution.

The case presents charged questions for the court about where religious freedom ends. The justices for the first time will have to weigh whether the state's faith-healing exemptions protect parents from criminal liability if their choices lead to a child's death.

The Wisconsin case revolves around Dale and Leilani Neumann, of Weston, a Wausau suburb in the central section of the state.

The couple's 11-year-old daughter, Madeline Kara Neumann, whom the family called Kara, fell ill in March 2008. Believing the girl was under spiritual attack, the family prayed over her. She died Easter Sunday of an undiagnosed but treatable form of diabetes.

At the heart of the Wisconsin case is a clause in state's statutes that protect people from child abuse charges if they provide spiritual treatment for a child rather than medical help. The Neumanns' attorneys contend Wisconsin's statutes don't say when a situation becomes so serious that prayer healing leaves parents open to criminal charges.

State Justice Department attorneys counter the prayer-healing exemption doesn't apply when a parent creates the risk of death and the child actually dies. The state's homicide statutes then apply and they provide no prayer-treatment exemption, they said.

http://www.newstimes.com/news/article/Lawyers-to-ask-Wis-court-to-rule-in-prayer-death-4088624.php

If "the prayer-healing exemption doesn't apply when a parent creates the risk of death and the child actually dies" then what about long-term damage, even if the child doesn't actually die? If left untreated diabetes can result in permanent damage which can seriously erode the quality of life, as well as shorten it.

[Ligyron]

1. rather curious she died exactly on Easter Sunday

isn't that when religious people such as her parents believe resurrections occur?

Just sayin' ...

[DetlefK]

2. Treatable, that's the important word. (Think of the precedence this case would set.)

Person A is dying. Person B could get help to save him, but instead opts to pray for him. Person A dies.

Remember that african plane that almost crashed into the Atlantic Ocean, about 1 year ago? The black-box later revealed that the captain at some point stopped trying to save the plane and began to pray aloud, while the rest of the crew kept on trying to avoid death.

[Adsos Letter]

4. I edited my post to address the question of long-term damage as well as death.

What if knowingly failing to seek treatment results in long-term deterioration of health, even if the sick individual doesn't die?

[immoderate]

3. This is a tragedy, but I don't see it as a homicide.

These people are stupid, but they didn't intend to kill the child. I'm not sure what to do -- a lesser charge perhaps, with supervision when they are released.

Every adult who "prayed over" her and anyone who persuaded the family that this was a "spiritual attack" should laso be cited as responsible in some way. It's hard for me to rectify criminal charges with well meaning stupidity, but there should be some guidance in situations like this.

--imm

[cbayer]

6. The sentence appears to be very light.

[cleanhippie]

8. "well meaning stupidity"

That pretty much sums up religion, IMO.

[pennylane100]

9. I really think it is homicide.

These parents can believe what they like about the powers of their god but that does not give them the right to risk their child's life based on their beliefs. If they were practicing witchcraft or some other non christian ritual, the courts would not hesitate to charge them with murder, Christians should not get an exemption.

[Adsos Letter]

16. "These people are stupid, but they didn't intend to kill the child."

Both parents were convicted of second-degree reckless homicide. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kara_Neumann_case#cite_note-Starck_WisconsinRapidsTribune_20090802-5
Under Wisconsin law that apparently means lack of intent, and precludes "circumstances which show utter disregard for human life." The second point is apparently necessary for a first-degree reckless homicide conviction.

940.06  Second-degree reckless homicide.
(1) Whoever recklessly causes the death of another human being is guilty of a Class D felony.
(2) Whoever recklessly causes the death of an unborn child is guilty of a Class D felony.
History: 1987 a. 399; 1997 a. 295; 2001 a. 109.
Judicial Council Note, 1988: Second-degree reckless homicide is analogous to the prior offense of homicide by reckless conduct. The revised statute clearly requires proof of a subjective mental state, i.e., criminal recklessness. See s. 939.24 and the NOTE thereto. [Bill 191-S]
Second-degree reckless homicide is not a lesser included offense of homicide by intoxicated use of a motor vehicle. State v. Lechner, 217 Wis. 2d 392, 576 N.W.2d 912 (1998), 96-2830.
The common law "year-and-a-day rule" that no homicide is committed unless the victim dies within a year and a day after the injury is inflicted is abrogated, with prospective application only. State v. Picotte, 2003 WI 42, 261 Wis. 2d 249, 661 N.W.2d 381, 01-3063.
Importance of clarity in law of homicide: The Wisconsin revision. Dickey, Schultz & Fullin. 1989 WLR 1323 (1989).
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/940/I/06

Apparently the court made provision for simple stupidity. Now their supreme court will have to figure it out, but apparently based on an appeal that the law is both inconsistent and ill-defined.

[immoderate]

17. Thanks. Interesting.

--imm

[cbayer]

5. In terms of the question you ask, it appears that the exemption would apply in any

case where death did not actually occur.

Odd law, imo. It seems there should be some kind of child advocate to step in in these cases.

[Adsos Letter]

10. I think you're on the right track with some form of advocacy...

but it seems to me to come back to the knotty part of the problem, which is on what does one base standing?

I also wonder if these parents have experienced any questioning of their faith after this, or if they believe that God simply said "No" and that the sanction of the courts is merely an example of faithful believers being persecuted (from their perspective).

[cbayer]

12. I had the opportunity to work with some Jehovah's Witnesses in similar cases

in the past. It was always difficult when adults refused life saving treatment, but when it came to children, things became much more complex.

I also saw some people question their beliefs when it came down to the wire, but i saw others where their beliefs became even more solidified.

It's a tough situation and one that hospital ethics committees all over must deal with routinely.

[cleanhippie]

7. WTF is "spitiual treatment"? And how can that even be a thing?

The people deserve to spend the rest of their lives sitting in a cell, thinking about what they have done.

[Adsos Letter]

11. My guess would be that it references prayer and anointing.

I would be interested to know if this has caused them any crisis of conscience, or if they simply see it in terms of God saying "No," and the legal repercussions just (in their minds) a form of State persecution of Christians.

I agree that they need to be sitting in a cell.

[dmallind]

13. The exemption is an abominable legalization of torture by Christians, and should be eliminated

Things like this are among the most obscene enshrinements of Christian privilege imaginable. These people were driven BY Christianity to torture their child to death, and did so without a shred of remorse or mercy, because of one thing and one thing alone - their Christianity. Remember this case the next time you are lied to about religious beliefs not hurting anybody else. They sure as fuck hurt the kid didn't they?

Yes by the way I know the statute does not specify Christianity, but if anyone imagines, say, Satanists getting to use it as a legal defense, they are quite frankly either lying or lunatics.

As always, IOKIYAC.

[rug]

14. Religion aside, it's an interesting argument.

A bedrock principle of criminal law is that the statute must adequately define the proscribed conduct.

[Adsos Letter]

15. Wisconsin state criminal code apparently allows for the religion exemption in child abuse/neglect

but not in the case of homicide. Scholars in Constitutional Law at UW-Madison Law School based their appeals on inconsistency regarding the application of the religion exemption:

...Howard Schweber, a UW-Madison associate professor of political science and legal studies who recently wrote a book on the First Amendment. “The religious exemption exists in one statute of law that could apply to the case. They (the court) have to decide what to do when two statutes are in conflict.”
http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/crime_and_courts/article_85c9b9e0-b195-5b08-bd76-6df955e64adf.html

and more directly to your point:

Marathon County Assistant District Attorney LaMont Jacobson, who prosecuted the Neumann cases, speculates that any appeals could be based on the Neumanns’ rights to due process being violated because of inconsistent state laws. “Parents don’t know what they can do. If you chose to pray for your child, how do you know when you’ve crossed the line?” Jacobson asks. “If something happens and it is ruled abuse, parents have the shield of religious exemption. The Neumanns didn’t have a shield because they were charged with homicide.”
http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/crime_and_courts/article_85c9b9e0-b195-5b08-bd76-6df955e64adf.html

It boggles the mind that one could find protection for child abuse or neglect under a religious exemption, given how much damage could occur under either of those headings. My understanding (always suspect) is that "second-degree reckless homicide," which is apparently what the mom was convicted of, implies lack of intent.

Child abuse might certainly be intentional and involve permanently debilitating injury, yet find cover under the exemption?