Guilty verdict in Oregon faith-healing trial.

[laconicsax]

http://www.oregonlive.com/clackamascounty/index.ssf/2010/02/beagley_verdict_comes_in_from.html

OREGON CITY -- A Clackamas County jury sent a clear signal Tuesday that parents who rely solely on faith healing to treat their children face prison if a child dies.

Jeffrey and Marci Beagley were found guilty Tuesday of criminally negligent homicide in the death of their 16-year-old son, Neil. The boy died in June 2008 of complications from an undiagnosed congenital urinary blockage after his parents attempted to heal him with prayer, anointing with oil and laying on of hands.

They are the first members of Oregon City's Followers of Christ church convicted of homicide in the congregation's long history of children dying from from treatable medical conditions.

"This is a signal to the religious community that they should be on notice that their activities will be scrutinized," said Steven K. Green, director of Willamette University's Center for Religion and Democracy. Other prosecutors may be emboldened to take similar cases to court, the law professor said.

...


In his closing argument, prosecutor Greg Horner noted that the Beagleys would not take their son to a physician but relied on medical experts to defend their actions.

It is "a rich irony," Horner said.

http://www.oregonlive.com/clackamascounty/index.ssf/2010/02/juror_says_conviction_in_faith.html

OREGON CITY -- As jurors agonized through two days of deliberations over the fate of Jeffrey and Marci Beagley, they kept coming back to a taped interview Marci Beagley gave police in the hours after her son, Neil, died.

Lake Oswego resident Amy Slatford said she and fellow jurors found much of the evidence in the Oregon City faith-healing trial contradictory or speculative, but the tape gave them firsthand knowledge of the Beagleys' thoughts and actions.

She said jurors relied on that interview more than any other piece of evidence in deciding Tuesday that the Beagleys were guilty of criminally negligent homicide. They will be sentenced Feb. 18.

...

"The Beagleys did not call 911 when Neil stopped breathing. The Beagleys did not proceed with CPR when Neil stopped breathing," said Slatford, 26, a veterinarian's assistant. "I believe that was the strongest evidence against them. They did not believe in any kind of emergency medical care."

Neil Beagley, 16, died in June 2008 from an undiagnosed but treatable congenital urinary blockage.

Instead of taking Neil to a doctor, his parents, members of the Followers of Christ Church in Oregon City, attempted to heal him with prayer, anointing with oil and laying on of hands.

[54anickel]

1. This is just so sad. Difficult to empathize with the parents until I remind myself of

a case at the hospital where a guy went home from an urgent care clinic and waited for his appendix to burst so the surgery would be covered by his catastrophic insurance. He'd been unemployed for quite a while, and just recently picked up a catastrophic insurance policy after a bout with H1N1 reminded him he wasn't invincible.

He almost didn't make it since his appendix decided to blow during a major snowstorm and it took a while for his girlfriend to get him to the hospital. Guess maybe the ambulance fee wouldn't be covered either.

I realize it's not even close to the same, but helps me to empathize their pain and frustration a bit. The guy with the appendix felt so foolish and ashamed for risking his life (and his girlfriend's during the drive). Said his decisions were driven by the "almighty buck" (his phrase) instead of common sense.

[moobu2]

5. I cant see how anyone could "empathize their pain and frustration"

These parents, and people like them, care more about their invisible friend than they do about their own children, and to prove it, they let their own children die horrible, agonizing, often easily preventable deaths. Studies have proven that prayers do not have any positive benefit on the health of patients whatsoever, so basically, they're just murdering their own children. I think they should be given very stiff prison sentences to show others that this ignorant practice is not acceptable. If they want to deny themselves some medical treatment for religious reasons, fine, but it’s not fine for them to do this for minors in their care. These people are murderers and if we don't come down hard on them this ignorant practice will just continue.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with the healthcare system at all.

[54anickel]

17. I stated empathize, not sympathize. and I agree with everything you said.

[rd_kent]

6. Your story has NOTHING do to with the negligence of the parents in this case.

They were waiting on "god" to heal their child.

[54anickel]

16. The negligence- no. Allowing something beyond your common sense to control you so much - yes.

These parents feared something - loss of face in the church, the wrath of their god for not having enough faith - whatever it was, it was based on fear and allowing that to control them and cloud their judgement.

The guy with the appendix feared loosing $3000-5,000 out of pocket appendectomy bill (much more if there were complications) if he had it taken care of before it burst. He also wanted to get his $$$ worth from the insurance premiums he'd paid. The lose of $$$ and the feeling of being cheated by the insurance for not covering the surgery clouded his judgement. He was being controlled by the rules of his insurance coverage and his attachment to the almighty dollar, they were controlled by the rules of their religion and their attachment to their not-so-almighty god.

Sure, the guy with the appendectomy seems to make more sense but the feelings of fear of loss that was driving their decisions were similar. That's the empathy I was attempting to get at.

I agree this was total negligence on the parents part, I'm not making an excuse for them. They should be charged. I was simply trying to empathize with the idea of guarding against the loss of something that has such a control over a person and ending up with it costing them something much more precious and valuable in the end. My appendix guy was lucky - things worked out OK for him and his girlfriend.

[pleah]

2. I definitely agree with the jury. n/t

[progressoid]

3. Maybe they can pray their way to an early parole.

[laconicsax]

19. !

:rofl:

[Jim__]

4. 10 - 2 Verdicts in a negligent homicide?

Is it now common that 12 - 0 verdicts are not required:

Friends and family reacted to the 10-2 verdicts with stunned silence. Marci Beagley hugged her mother in the courthouse lobby as both women wept. Other family members quietly stood by.

The Beagleys will be sentenced Feb. 18. The maximum penalty for criminally negligent homicide is 10 years, but the Beagleys likely will receive no more than 18 months in prison and could be sentenced to probation.

2 jurors voting not guilty seems like reasonable doubt to me.

I'm not talking about this case, I'm talking about convicting people of felonies based on 10 - 2 jury votes.

[rd_kent]

7. You're right, does seem strange. How would YOU have voted if you were on the jury?

[Jim__]

8. If you've ever been on a jury, you know that how you vote is determined by ...

... the evidence presented and the judge's charge. Without that information, I can't say. In this case, without the judge's charge, I have no idea of what the pertinent laws state.

[rd_kent]

9. C'mon jim, it seems pretty obvious what has gone on here. We all make decsions like this here on DU

all the time, after only reading an article.

Knowing what you know right now, how would you have voted?

[Jim__]

10. It's obvious? I assume they were charged with negligent homcide.

I have no idea what the basis of the defense was. Since it's obvious to you, tell me what that basis was and maybe I can find the pertinent laws online.

Knowing what I know right now, I have no basis to make a legal decision. Do I think it's wrong to withhold medical treatment from a child? Of course. But these parents, whom I assume loved their child, did just that. Why? Religious reasons. But, what did their lawyer argue? And, what are the general legal implications of deciding that his arguments are not sufficient? I don't know. Perhaps you can explain it to me.

[rd_kent]

11. ok, no worries. I will remember how you feel about making decisons here on DU

next time YOU jump to a conclusion.

[trotsky]

12. Jim gets a little tangled up in his own po-mo web sometimes. n/t

[laconicsax]

14. Oregon law allows it.

It even says so in the second article I linked.

[Jim__]

15. Clearly it does. My concern is that this marks a substantial degradation in the burden of proof.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt means that any reasonable person would be convinced of guilt by the evidence presented. Accepting a less than unanimous guilty vote by the jury, is dropping the normal standardof beyond a reasonable doubt.

[trotsky]

18. Do you have any proof whatsoever that the "2"...

voted against conviction because of reasonable doubt? Perhaps they voted against because they don't like the law? Maybe they are evidence-based medicine haters too?

[DeSwiss]

13. K&R

[uberllama42]

20. If there is a rational state interest behind a law, you aren't exempt due to your religion

SCOTUS has ruled that American Indians are not allowed to ingest peyote as part of religious ceremonies. It would be a travesty to say that an activity that harms no one can be barred in pursuit of some state interest, but negligent homicide cannot.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

21. Well, two things at work there.

Firstly, the defendants in the Arizona peyote case were Indians, who have never really had the full protection of law. Secondly, that case involved drugs, which causes all logic or restraint to fly out the window. Jurists go nuts over drug shit. The crime here was committed by Christians, who have a great deal more leeway in crying over their faith.