NZ Exorcism ritual detailed

[gumboot]

This story makes me want to throw up. After the recent nonsense with the guy murdering the homosexual and getting away with it, I am beginning to lose all faith in our Justice System.

These people were found guilty of manslaughter. To give such a pathetic sentence for such a serious crime is appalling - more so in the context of this case because it is essentially a judge conceding that it's okay to commit crimes if you're doing it for cultural reasons.

The outcome of this case is an utter disgrace. I can't find the words...

 

[gumboot]

Nobody suggested it does.
They did not commit murder.

Do you think 300hrs or 150hrs community service is an appropriate sentence for manslaughter? I don't. The maximum sentence for manslaughter is life.

177. Punishment of manslaughter

(1) Every one who commits manslaughter is liable to imprisonment for life.

Crimes Act, 1961: Part 8 - Crimes Against the Person

Community service is not acceptable for such a serious crime. And if these had not been Maori practising their "culture" you can bet these people would be behind bars. Just like if anyone other than Maori had stolen a body and buried it against the will of the deceased and their next of kin, the court would have made sure the body was returned.

 

[gumboot]

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?

That's not actually how the distinction between murder and manslaughter works. Murder can be unintentional and still murder.

 

[kerikiwi]

That's not actually how the distinction between murder and manslaughter works. Murder can be unintentional and still murder.

And intentional killing can never be manslaughter.
In this case the charge was manslaughter, not murder, for good reason.
300 hours community service plus the other parts of the sentence can be appropriate for manslaughter. Non-custodial sentences for manslaughter are far from unknown.

 

[George 152]

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.

Methinks you are very very wrong.

 

[kerikiwi]

Methinks you are very very wrong.

That's good.
It just seemed strange that you would bring up utu, which, other than the racial connection, is of no relevance.

 

[The Atheist]

And intentional killing can never be manslaughter.
In this case the charge was manslaughter, not murder, for good reason.
300 hours community service plus the other parts of the sentence can be appropriate for manslaughter. Non-custodial sentences for manslaughter are far from unknown.

I decided to make a rare foray to see if this had been discussed here.

Lovely to see you defending the sentence.

While I could think of several cases where non-custodial sentences could have been imposed, this ain't one of them. Gay Oakes [I think] who topped her abusive husband before he could get his fingers into their daughter and the poor Waiheke woman driven to kill by her autistic daughter are two which immediately spring to mind.

In the makutu case, letting them off* sets an incredibly dangerous precedent.

Bruce Emery must be much more comfortable now. He sure didn't mean to kill that tagger, but his culture says a man's home is his castle.

*Community service and education is punishment.

Yeah, right.

 

[pakeha]

Here's another take on the subject.
http://www.crazymalc.co.nz/2007/Nov/13Nov/13Nov.htm

Perhaps I've been away far too long.
Since when are lions sacred?
Here, on the far side of the world, the 'legitimate' exorcisms are generally performed by a qualified RC priest. (I can't believe I really typed that sentence and on the JREF forum, to boot.)
Still, we get the 'I saw the Devil look out of her eyes' exorcisms here as well, often involving large kitchen knives.

About the sentencing.
I'm only too glad it wasn't up to me to do the sentencing.
Yes, I know education is obviously the key to this situation.
Those hours of social service could go a long way to helping these people understand what they've done.
I'd hope the nature of the social service has been well thought out.

 

[kerikiwi]

Lovely to see you defending the sentence.

And lovely to see you failing to read carefully.

 

[pakeha]

On the subject of exorcisms, here's one I'd not have expected:

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/south/09/04/mother.theresa.exorcism/

 

[George 152]

That's good.
It just seemed strange that you would bring up utu, which, other than the racial connection, is of no relevance.

Not strange at all.
Utu is the Maori for revenge or payback.
It was one of the main points of the pre European Maori justice system.
If harm has been done to one hapu by another then the offender must redress the damage.
If you look in your bable you will notice the Jewish writers put it as being
"Do unto others as you would have them do to you"
Another point:
Suicide is dying by your own actions.
Homicide is dying by anothers actions.,
They killed the woman. Their sentence is laughable

 

[kerikiwi]

I don't need a lesson in utu, thanks anyway.
Just not sure why you think it relevant to this case, if not because the people involved were Maori.
And quite bemused at the reference to a bible (which I don't own) and suicide.
I know what suicide is, I know what homicide is and I also know that not all homicides are created equal.
What sentence would you consider appropriate?

 

[George 152]

I don't need a lesson in utu, thanks anyway.
Just not sure why you think it relevant to this case, if not because the people involved were Maori.
And quite bemused at the reference to a bible (which I don't own) and suicide.
I know what suicide is, I know what homicide is and I also know that not all homicides are created equal.
What sentence would you consider appropriate?

Prison.
The same sentence as for any other manslaughter.
The reason I explained Utu is that this is an international forum

 

[kerikiwi]

Prison.
The same sentence as for any other manslaughter.
The reason I explained Utu is that this is an international forum

A conviction for manslaughter does not always bring a prison sentence.
And how long a sentence would you think appropriate? A day? A week? A month? A year?
Still don't see the relevance of utu.

 

[Orphia Nay]

These people were found guilty of manslaughter. To give such a pathetic sentence for such a serious crime is appalling - more so in the context of this case because it is essentially a judge conceding that it's okay to commit crimes if you're doing it for cultural reasons.

The outcome of this case is an utter disgrace. I can't find the words...

From the other side of the pond, I agree with you.

"It's okay to commit crimes if you're doing it for cultural reasons"...

make that:

"It's okay to commit crimes if you're doing it for B.S. reasons".

If the Aussie/Indian homeopathicists get off with such a light sentence, I'll be furious.

 

[The Atheist]

And lovely to see you failing to read carefully.

Toots, it may surprise you to know that I read fairly well. Most importantly, I read for context, and here is that context in light of what you've said about the sentence.

Do note the bolded bits:

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?

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.

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.

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.

And intentional killing can never be manslaughter.
In this case the charge was manslaughter, not murder, for good reason.
300 hours community service plus the other parts of the sentence can be appropriate for manslaughter. Non-custodial sentences for manslaughter are far from unknown.

Go on, convince me I'm mistaken and just say what you mean then, because all of your posts, individually and en bloc look awfully like defence of the sentence.

You and Pita Sharples are tied for apologetics so far.

 

[George 152]

There has been a conviction for a death during an 'exorcism'
Quoted from an article:
However, Mallard is also correct in pointing to the fact that in the
only recent precedent – a failed Christian exorcism that ended in a
fatality – the perpetrator drew a six year prison sentence.
This sad event happened around 2001

 

[George 152]

There has been a conviction for a death during an 'exorcism'
Quoted from an article:
However, Mallard is also correct in pointing to the fact that in the
only recent precedent – a failed Christian exorcism that ended in a
fatality – the perpetrator drew a six year prison sentence.
This sad event happened around 2001

New Zealand herald.
The exorcism of her demons, a "fearful ordeal" lasting five to six hours, caused the death of Auckland woman Joanna Lee, the High Court at Auckland was told today.

Yong Bum Lee, also known as Luke Lee, 38, is charged with the manslaughter of Ms Lee (no relation) during an exorcism on December 9 last year.
[...]

In his closing address, crown prosecutor Aaron Perkins told the jury of five men and seven women that Lee was fully entitled to believe in demons, but he was not able to exercise his belief in a way which inflicted harm on others.

"When it comes to placing the lives of other people in danger there are no special rules that apply to the deeply religious," Mr Perkins said.

He said the accused's belief that Ms Lee would arise from the dead should have no bearing on the verdict.

"You have to deal with the here and now ... the evidence that Joanna Lee is tragically dead."

Ms Lee's death had been caused by Lee's "foolish, dangerous behaviour" during the exorcism, Mr Perkins said.

Death had been caused by Lee's "sitting on her, bouncing up and down on her, and most importantly by the pressure applied to her neck".

Lee, after ensuring each juror had a Bible, used scripture to defend his actions in his summing up this morning.

Speaking through an interpreter, Lee quoted a passage from Mark chapter five where Jesus cast a demon out of a boy, an act that left the boy seemingly dead.

"Verse 26 is a very important verse. The Bible said the demon cried, the demon showed severe convulsions, and the demon came out of the boy, and the scripture said the boy was like the dead.

"At the time a lot of people thought the boy was dead. Imagine if one of the people there went to the police and reported about the death, and who do you think the police would have pointed out? Do you think Jesus Christ caused the death of the boy? Satan caused the death."

Lee then quoted further verses to show demons could cause breathlessness, cause people to suffer pain and to die, and that the purpose of Jesus coming to earth was to defeat Satan and his demons.