NZ Exorcism ritual detailed

Whatever the outcome (and any verdict other than guilty seems impossible, but then look at the Bain retrial ...) they will still be utterly convinced that the demons exist(ed).
 
The fact that they get to walk away virtually scot free...

I can't understand how they don't get locked away forever...

Am I being too harsh?

ETA: I want these people to really suffer...

It would also be nice if whoever convinced them that demons existed and that exorcisms were a valid form of treatment could also suffer - horribly...
 
Last edited:
vIQleS said:
The fact that they get to walk away virtually scot free...

I can't understand how they don't get locked away forever...

Am I being too harsh?

ETA: I want these people to really suffer...

It would also be nice if whoever convinced them that demons existed and that exorcisms were a valid form of treatment could also suffer - horribly...
Click to expand...

Yes you are being too harsh, and vengeful.
Why do you want them to suffer? How will that change what has happened or change what they believe?
You seriously want them locked away forever?
 
Our legal system makes the distinction between intentional killing and unintentional.
Do you think that there should be no distinction?
That someone who kills deliberately should face the same charge as, for example, someone who gets in a fight and lands a punch which kills?
 
Not forever... But I want them to understand that there are consequences.

I want others to realise that there are consequences.

They seem to be getting away with a crime simply because they're stupid and ignorant.

I don't think community service is enough.
 
I might start complaining if, e.g., stabbing your tutorial student 200 times because she "provoked" you actually nets you a verdict of manslaughter (that would probably have created a 20000 strong instant lynch mob here). This one is a deal more difficult to assess :(
 
vIQleS said:
Not forever... But I want them to understand that there are consequences.

I want others to realise that there are consequences.

They seem to be getting away with a crime simply because they're stupid and ignorant.

I don't think community service is enough.
Click to expand...

It is certain that they already do understand there are consequences: the person they killed was someone they loved.
They are not 'getting away with a crime'.
The more important question is not how we exact retribution, but how we educate them, and others who share their bizarre beliefs, that there are no demons to be exorcised.
 
kerikiwi said:
It is certain that they already do understand there are consequences: the person they killed was someone they loved.
They are not 'getting away with a crime'.
The more important question is not how we exact retribution, but how we educate them, and others who share their bizarre beliefs, that there are no demons to be exorcised.
Click to expand...

I would argue that a good way to start doing that is to punish them severely - to demonstrate that religious or cultural beliefs do not excuse you from exercising common sense or rational thought.

These people were in full control of their faculties, and they deliberately chose to inflict violent damage on a helpless child that in any other circumstances they would themselves have considered cruel and unusual torture.

What are the world-wide precedents for this sort of case? This has happened before...

I wonder - do they understand the consequences? I can't help but worry that at least some of them will wander away from this with the impression that they were doing the right thing, but that it went a little bit wrong... (Or that, in this case, God decided that she should die.)

I'm sure you can't change people's beliefs by punishing them (only with the threat of eternal punishment apparently). Perhaps I'm just overly emotional because the topic is one of my hot buttons. I would (and do) feel the same way about homeopaths killing an infant etc...

ETA: When I was a fundamentalist YEC I would have found this appalling...
 
Last edited:
vIQleS said:
These people were in full control of their faculties, and they deliberately chose to inflict violent damage on a helpless child that in any other circumstances they would themselves have considered cruel and unusual torture.

What are the world-wide precedents for this sort of case? This has happened before...

I wonder - do they understand the consequences? I can't help but worry that at least some of them will wander away from this with the impression that they were doing the right thing, but that it went a little bit wrong... (Or that, in this case, God decided that she should die.)

I'm sure you can't change people's beliefs by punishing them (only with the threat of eternal punishment apparently). Perhaps I'm just overly emotional because the topic is one of my hot buttons. I would (and do) feel the same way about homeopaths killing an infant etc...
Click to expand...

The person they killed was 22 years old, not a child.
I don't think severe punishment (how severe is severe?) would change their beliefs. They would still think they were fundamentally right.
The homeopaths who let their baby die for lack of real treatment are an apt comparison.
They too would be grieving for the baby but still hold to their delusion.
 
My bad - I read 14 somewhere...

I assume then if it was an adult that there was some sort of consent?
 
A 14 year old was also subjected to the same treatment, but survived.
The woman who died was almost certainly mentally ill. But she probably shared the delusion about demons being responsible for her troubles, at least to some extent.
 
kerikiwi said:
The person they killed was 22 years old, not a child.
I don't think severe punishment (how severe is severe?) would change their beliefs. They would still think they were fundamentally right.
The homeopaths who let their baby die for lack of real treatment are an apt comparison.
They too would be grieving for the baby but still hold to their delusion.
Click to expand...

If these 'socalled' healers had run the woman down with a car they would have been guilty of (at least) homicide.
That they forcibly restrained the victim for hours and performed acts more Hollywood than Maori should now invoke the law of 'Utu'
After all that was the -ancient- way...
 
George152 said:
If these 'socalled' healers had run the woman down with a car they would have been guilty of (at least) homicide.
That they forcibly restrained the victim for hours and performed acts more Hollywood than Maori should now invoke the law of 'Utu'
After all that was the -ancient- way...
Click to expand...

If they had deliberately run her down with a car no doubt they would have been guilty of murder (not homicide: no such crime).
As it is the death was ruled not intentional, hence the conviction for manslaughter, not murder.
There is no law of utu.
Methinks I detect a slight whiff of racism in your post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom