14 people charged with murder of an 8 year old Queensland girl.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Vixen

I don't believe these people really believed God would intervene. They knew she was going to die and they let it happen, whilst clapping and singing.

So what was the motive? They just thought the child was inconvenient? And what difference does it make anyway?

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by lionking

So what was the motive? They just thought the child was inconvenient? And what difference does it make anyway?

Cold-blooded child cruelty.

I blame the parents primarily.

And the participants for failing to demur or intervene.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Darat

That won't be the test - because then the law would be testing the sincerity of their beliefs and people would literally be able to get away with murder. The test will be "would a reasonable person be expected to know that their inactions would cause death?" And the answer is clearly yes in this situation.

If I may:

Quote:

'....One is not allowed not to intend the obvious consequences of one’s actions. Supposing, for example, that you belonged to a society for the destruction of ugly buildings. You drew up a hit list, and you went around blowing the abominations up.’
* * ........
* * ‘And then supposing that you were to argue that you had not foreseen that anyone would be injured in the process. The jury would probably think that you jolly well should have foreseen it. Another example: if the man on the Clapham omnibus would expect death to result from a stab wound through the heart, then it is not open to the assailant to argue that he did not in fact intend such a result. Unless he pleads insanity, of course.’

[lionking]

Originally Posted by catsmate

If I may:

Who are you quoting and in what context?

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by lionking

So what was the motive? They just thought the child was inconvenient? And what difference does it make anyway?

It is a truism that juries like to see motive; however most are smart enough to realise "god-bothering nutcasery" counts.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by lionking

Who are you quoting and in what context?

Lord Peter Wimsey to his wife in the novel Thrones, Dominations, on the subject of murder in ECL.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Susheel

They weren't ignorant because they weren't aware. They chose to be willfully ignorant and decided they knew better. They chose to ignore sensible counsel for the sake of puerile beliefs. That level of ignorance in no way makes the crime any less...in fact makes it even worse.

And they can hardly claim otherwise given the previous incident.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by lionking

Who are you quoting and in what context?

John Gardner, and how "reasonable person" is used in common law systems.

ETA: Misread the sequence - sorry - I was lining to a short essay about the "reasonable" person and didn't realise catsmate wasn't quoting from that!

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Darat

John Gardner, and how "reasonable person" is used in common law systems.

Not according to catsmate, who I asked.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Susheel

They weren't ignorant because they weren't aware. They chose to be willfully ignorant and decided they knew better. They chose to ignore sensible counsel for the sake of puerile beliefs. That level of ignorance in no way makes the crime any less...in fact makes it even worse.

No, wait...that's the issue. If the State determines that secular findings override religious faith, well...that's a bit interesting, isn't it? The State is formally deciding that religious beliefs are cuckoo. Would they apply this reasoning to aboriginal peoples who say they have a sacred mountain or whatever? In the treatment of dead bodies or cemeteries?

I think a judge should be able to say "well, if you adhered to your religious faith, you can collect your reward in the afterlife, while God high-fives you. In the here and now, we don't care about your beliefs and your behavior led to this girl's death".

------------------------

Also, thanks to smartcooky for posting the Queensland law regarding the definition of 'murder'. It gets confusing at times when a jurisdiction ignores the common English-speaking meaning of murder (+/- intentional, unlawful killing), and wraps almost any homicide into it. On the Kyle Rittenhouse thread here, it was titled as "Accused Multi-Murderer", when the State of Wisconsin doesn't actually have a charge for 'murder', except for Capital Murder. They simply refer to different degrees of homicide.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Thermal

No, wait...that's the issue. If the State determines that secular findings override religious faith, well...that's a bit interesting, isn't it? The State is formally deciding that religious beliefs are cuckoo. Would they apply this reasoning to aboriginal peoples who say they have a sacred mountain or whatever? In the treatment of dead bodies or cemeteries?

I think a judge should be able to say "well, if you adhered to your religious faith, you can collect your reward in the afterlife, while God high-fives you. In the here and now, we don't care about your beliefs and your behavior led to this girl's death".

------------------------
...snip...

Belvie it or not but this may have popped up in our legal systems once or twice over the last 300 years or so....

The test is not about the sincerity of anyone's beliefs or the validity of those beliefs - its about the reasonable person.

(Now there is of course a wrinkle with this as what the "reasonable person" in a society and a culture will change as a culture and a society changes but that is very slow and doesn't impact this type of outlier case.)

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Thermal

No, wait...that's the issue. If the State determines that secular findings override religious faith, well...that's a bit interesting, isn't it? The State is formally deciding that religious beliefs are cuckoo. Would they apply this reasoning to aboriginal peoples who say they have a sacred mountain or whatever? In the treatment of dead bodies or cemeteries?

I think a judge should be able to say "well, if you adhered to your religious faith, you can collect your reward in the afterlife, while God high-fives you. In the here and now, we don't care about your beliefs and your behavior led to this girl's death"..

None of this has relevance to the case in question.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Darat

Belvie it or not but this may have popped up in our legal systems once or twice over the last 300 years or so....

The test is not about the sincerity of anyone's beliefs or the validity of those beliefs - its about the reasonable person.

(Now there is of course a wrinkle with this as what the "reasonable person" in a society and a culture will change as a culture and a society changes but that is very slow and doesn't impact this type of outlier case.)

Yep. Over here were have a case on average once every year of a Jehovah's Witness or similar person refusing blood transfusion. The hospital applies to the court and court issues an order allowing blood to be transfused.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Samson

The dominos will not cooperate on this.

What in the name of all that is holy, unholy or atheistic is this supposed to mean?

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by catsmate

None of this has relevance to the case in question.

It does.

[MarkCorrigan]

I hope these loons get the book thrown at them. **** these people.

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by Thermal

That's how I read it. How do you try someone for being so stupid that they literally rely on supernatural medical care? As ridiculous as it sounds, they may need to stand a competency evaluation. But it would only be murder if the State can show that they are psychopaths that intended for the girl to die.

I'm extrapolating from the available facts based on my own familiarity with various religious philosophies. That said, it's very likely that they didn't "intend" for her to die (as in, that was the outcome they wanted), but that they were willing to accept that she would die (and go be with God of course), if that turned out to be God's will. They were no doubt praying for the miracle cure, but I'd bet that in the back of their minds they were also considering the possibility that they were making a sacrifice that would prove their faith, and that also being an okay outcome.

[Lplus]

Originally Posted by Myriad

I'm extrapolating from the available facts based on my own familiarity with various religious philosophies. That said, it's very likely that they didn't "intend" for her to die (as in, that was the outcome they wanted), but that they were willing to accept that she would die (and go be with God of course), if that turned out to be God's will. They were no doubt praying for the miracle cure, but I'd bet that in the back of their minds they were also considering the possibility of a sacrifice that would prove their faith, and that also being an okay outcome.

Surely it would only prove their faith if the miracle occurred? If the child died, it would prove nothing at all except not to waste time on prayers, or that they or the child were not worthy.

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by Lplus

Surely it would only prove their faith if the miracle occurred? If the child died, it would prove nothing at all except not to waste time on prayers, or that they or the child were not worthy.

That's how you would interpret those outcomes. Different people have different mental models of what events mean or prove. I don't agree with theirs, and I don't expect you to either, but the world is more understandable when you keep in mind that those alternative mental models exist.

[Sherman Bay]

I know this case isn't being tried in the USA, where religious freedom rules supreme, but let's pretend.

"Ladies and gentlemen of the Jury, our national motto is 'In God We Trust.' That statement is on all our coins and money. It is repeated every time the Pledge of Allegiance is recited at public meetings. It is enshrined in our highest laws, ingrained in our national conscience, and confirmed daily.

"My clients applied that conscience to their daughter. They trusted in God, as they were taught, as they could expect from public discourse. Now they are being persecuted for following that noble aspiration. They are persecuted for following the dictates of not only the National Government, but their personal choice of church. Their very freedom to worship in the manner they see fit is being challenged.

"If my clients are denied the ability to practice their religion, what's next? Do we bulldoze churches and synagogues, lock up priests and ministers, and attack their parishioners? Is any religion or religious tenet now safe from government intrusion? Where will this end, in a theocracy, where someone else's religion gets to make the laws and handle the prosecution? Or can we return to what this country was founded on, religious freedom?

"My clients trusted in God. But as we know, the Supreme Being doesn't always agree with His creations. As the only party to this transaction with superior knowledge and the ability to see into the future, sometimes He has other plans -- plans that may be inscrutable to us. So who are we to oppose the Almighty, the Maker of All Things? We are but puny servants to his greater direction and wisdom, and can do nothing He doesn't permit..."

[jimbob]

Derail about the NZ case and unvaccinated blood split to http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=363145

Posted By:jimbob

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Sherman Bay

I know this case isn't being tried in the USA, where religious freedom rules supreme, but let's pretend.

"Ladies and gentlemen of the Jury, our national motto is 'In God We Trust.' That statement is on all our coins and money. It is repeated every time the Pledge of Allegiance is recited at public meetings. It is enshrined in our highest laws, ingrained in our national conscience, and confirmed daily.

"My clients applied that conscience to their daughter. They trusted in God, as they were taught, as they could expect from public discourse. Now they are being persecuted for following that noble aspiration. They are persecuted for following the dictates of not only the National Government, but their personal choice of church. Their very freedom to worship in the manner they see fit is being challenged.

"If my clients are denied the ability to practice their religion, what's next? Do we bulldoze churches and synagogues, lock up priests and ministers, and attack their parishioners? Is any religion or religious tenet now safe from government intrusion? Where will this end, in a theocracy, where someone else's religion gets to make the laws and handle the prosecution? Or can we return to what this country was founded on, religious freedom?

"My clients trusted in God. But as we know, the Supreme Being doesn't always agree with His creations. As the only party to this transaction with superior knowledge and the ability to see into the future, sometimes He has other plans -- plans that may be inscrutable to us. So who are we to oppose the Almighty, the Maker of All Things? We are but puny servants to his greater direction and wisdom, and can do nothing He doesn't permit..."

But doesn't the US specifically separate Church and State?

[Shadowdweller]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

But doesn't the US specifically separate Church and State?

Theoretically, yes. In practice...

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by Myriad

They were no doubt praying for the miracle cure, but I'd bet that in the back of their minds they were also considering the possibility that they were making a sacrifice that would prove their faith, and that also being an okay outcome.

Not a sacrifice, which is something of value that you give to the gods to please them. What they did was gamble her life on a validation of their faith. Clearly they thought her life was worth less than their emotional comfort. They are no different to a drunk who insists he is sober enough to drive - then kills someone on the road, proving he wasn't.

Well actually there is a difference. A drunk's cognition is physically impaired by alcohol. These people do not even have that excuse. They 'drugged' themselves with the idea that they could invent a fantasy permitting them to buck authority, and reality would have to bend to it. She died due to their arrogance.

[rjh01]

One question. Has there been another case when more than 14 people were charged with a single murder? Details? In my mind, a mob may have decided to kill someone, then done it. No idea of the result or if it ever really happened.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by rjh01

One question. Has there been another case when more than 14 people were charged with a single murder? Details? In my mind, a mob may have decided to kill someone, then done it. No idea of the result or if it ever really happened.

In Australia, not to my knowledge. There have cases where many people have been charged over gang rapes.

The closest I could find was the “Peru six” where six Aussie tourists were accused of throwing someone off a balcony, but they were not prosecuted.

https://www.news.com.au/travel/trave...cb154a66f90ba2

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by lionking

.....
The closest I could find was the “Peru six” where six Aussie tourists were accused of throwing someone off a balcony, but they were not prosecuted.

https://www.news.com.au/travel/trave...cb154a66f90ba2

Note the basis for the accusation:

Quote:

Renewed interest in the case came about when Rodriguez’s family claimed his ghost had appeared to them in dreams, telling them he had, in fact, been murdered.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Note the basis for the accusation:

I did see that. I don’t the accused needed Perry Mason to get off….

[Samson]

Originally Posted by rjh01

One question. Has there been another case when more than 14 people were charged with a single murder? Details? In my mind, a mob may have decided to kill someone, then done it. No idea of the result or if it ever really happened.

The case is ridiculous.
Of 14 people, most will be pawns, a few castles bishops Knights queens and Kings.
This is a failure way before this child died, of state funded education etc.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Samson

The case is ridiculous.
Of 14 people, most will be pawns, a few castles bishops Knights queens and Kings.
This is a failure way before this child died, of state funded education etc.

What? What on earth does state funded education have to do with a religious sect killing a child?

[Samson]

Originally Posted by lionking

What? What on earth does state funded education have to do with a religious sect killing a child?

I consider sects to always abuse.
They never avail themselves of current science and knowledge.
I consider Islam to he a sect for example.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Samson

I consider sects to always abuse.
They never avail themselves of current science and knowledge.
I consider Islam to he a sect for example.

What the **** does this have to do with state funded education or Islam?

[Samson]

Originally Posted by lionking

What the **** does this have to do with state funded education or Islam?

If state funded education was worth a hill of beans sects would never happen, and Islam would be exposed for the hoax it is.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Samson

If state funded education was worth a hill of beans sects would never happen, and Islam would be exposed for the hoax it is.

Utter nonsense.