Vegan couple sentenced to life over baby's death

[MACHOMULA]

This story breaks my heart. I definitely think they deserve the sentence they got. I am a mother-baby nurse and trust me, I have seen some real special ones, but everyone understands the concept of weight gain and that the baby should start to grow within a few days after birth. They had to have looked at their child and seen that it was loosing weight. They had to have thought it did not look well. I think they should have to spend the rest of their lives drinking soy milk and apple juice. We'll see how well they thrive on that.

I guess what's hardest for me is seeing things like this happen when my husband and I want a baby so very bad. We've been trying for 2 years and in treatment for a year. How can idiots like them have a baby, and we can't??? It's just so unfair.

 

[ratmist]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raerae Actually thats completely different. A drunk driver is a danger to other people. And if the person is a repeat offender, needs to be seperated from the general population because of safety issues. Or if they kill someone in a drunk driving related accident, deserve the appropriate sentence. Everyone knows it's against the law to drink and drive. So if you kill someone, it's not like you can say, "I didn't know I was drunk!" In this case, the only people the parents are a danger too, is the child. And since it's already dead, they are not a danger to anyone else. So there is no reason to seperate them from the rest of the general population, especially for a life sentence. Is some form of punishment deserved? Yes. Is life in prison the correct punishment? No.

I think everyone agrees it's tragic, and that the issue is not veganism. I'm a vegetarian and I avoid dairy products because I diagree with the dairy industry. So I drink soy milk instead. However, like most vegetarians and vegans, I research the hell out of my diet. Maybe that's part of the problem here - maybe they got bad advice. You don't have to go very far to get bad advice about how to raise a child, and that includes ignorant vegans with the best of intentions.

However, I grew up to believe that if you make a mistake - particularly if it results in the death of someone else - you have to make payment for the mistake. Part of that payment, if you've got some kind of a soul in you, is severe regret and guilt over what you have done, even if it was an accident. However, I think society is demanding more from this case than just regret from the parents, because we find it hard to believe that they didn't read a label, or research what they were doing before they did this to their child. That is the essence of neglect, which for example is defined by the California Juvenile Crimes glossary as:

[SIZE=-1]Failure by a parent to provide a minor child with basic life necessities. The adult does not have to have intent to abuse or neglect for the neglect to be proven.[/SIZE]
​

Maybe they didn't intend to abuse or neglect their child - that is pretty clear because they did feed the child *something*. However, the point is that when their actions were clearly not working for this child, they persisted in their actions which lead to the death of their son.

And that mistake was repeated over and over for at least five weeks. Those repeated mistakes had a culmulative effect that included severe agony and a slow, horrible death for an innocent person who was completely and utterly dependent upon his parents for every aspect of care that was not administered: and that is what has to be paid for. At first, I didn't think life in prison is fair because I honestly couldn't believe they intended to murder their child by intentionally depriving the child of the nourishment he needed. After all, they did try soy milk and apple juice.

But somewhere in those six weeks, they must've known something was wrong, or they began to neglect this child even as his symptoms of starvation worsened. As his symptoms worsened and he weakened, he would've stopped crying - and maybe that helped them to continue the neglect. Neglecting a child of your own is against the law and punishable by fines at the least, the removal of your child to court-appointed care, and even imprisonment.

How much neglect equals murder? I don't know. But I do know that six weeks is a long time, and they clearly put their personal beliefs above the needs of their child by not seeing a physician sometime before the baby died. I don't know if they ever thought to themselves, "I'd rather that this child die with us in safety than be exposed to the germs in the hospital that could kill him", but given that they never once sought medical care for their child from the time of birth, that must've been a bridge they already crossed.

 

[ratmist]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raerae I question the sentance given. Not the fact they were neglectiful. I agree on all counts that they should have been better more informed parents. Hindsight is 20/20.

Going by their sentencing, they were convicted of murder one. Murder definitions take directly from a Pennsylvania Act of 1794 that states:

Murder which shall be perpetrated by means of poison, or by lying in wait, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing, or which shall be committed in the perpetration or attempt to perpetrate, any arson, rape, robbery, or burglary, shall be deemed murder of the first degree; and all other kinds of murder shall be deemed murder of the second degree.
​

While every state has their own specific definition of murder and malice, in general:

The definition of murder as contained in the works of standard ancient and modern writers upon English and American criminal law will be useful.

Finch defines murder to be "manslaughter upon former malice, which we call prepensed malice; as if one to kill his wife give her (lying sicke) poyson in a rosted apple; and she, eating a little of it, give the rest to a little child of theirs, which the husband, lest he be suspected, suffereth the child to eate, who dieth of the same poyson; this is murder though the wife recover," &c. (Third Book of the Law, 215.)

According to Lord Coke, Pleas of the Crown, 47, "murder is when a man of sound memory and age of discretion, unlawfully killeth within any county of the realm, any reasonable creature in rerum naturae under the King's peace with malice fore thought, either expressed by the party or implied by law, so that the party wounded or hurt, &c., die of the wound or hurt, &c., within a year and day of the same."

Sir Mathew Hall, 1 Pleas of the Crown, 425-6, defines murder as "a killing of a man ex malitia praecogitata," and says that "antiently a barbarous assault with intent to murder so that the party was left for dead, but yet recovered again, was adjudged murder and petit treason."

Sir William Hawkins, whose work on Pleas of the Crown followed Hale's, after saying that the word "murder" anciently signified only the private killing of a man, and referring to 14 Edw. III, c. 4, repealing the Danish law concerning Engleschire, says:

"By murder, therefore, at this day, we understand the wilful killing of any subject whatsoever through malice forethought whether the person slain be an Englishman or a foreigner." (P. 92.)

East's Pleas of the Crown, appeared in the year 1716 and murder in the sense in which it was understood in the writer's time was defined to be "the voluntary killing any person (which extends not to infants in ventre sa mere) under the King's peace, of malice prepense or aforethought, either express or implied by law." (Phila. ed. of 1806, p. 214.)

Sir William Blackstone wrote in 1753, and in a note by the American editors to the first American edition of Hale's P. C., it is observed that Coke's definition of murder, as modified by Blackstone, is "so accurate, comprehensive and elegant that it has been universally recognized wherever English law prevails. "Murder," says Blackstone, 4 Com., 198, "is when a person of sound memory and discretion unlawfully killeth any reasonable creature in being and under the King's peace with malice aforethought either express or implied." This is substantially the definition of the crime as known for several hundred years and as now understood in the United States. (See Wharton Crim. Law, Vol. 2, sec. 930.)
​

That was taken from THE UNITED STATES vs. CHARLES J. GUITEAU. No. 14,056. SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 1 Mackey 498; 1882 U.S. App.

Furthermore, implied malice is proven by acts that involve reckless indifference to human life or in a death that occurs during the commission of certain felonies. It is a felony to neglect your child.

End of story, I guess. Guilty of murder. What degree of murder? You could argue first degree murder because of the reckless indifference to the human life that was taken. Reckless indifference would be argued because there was at least six weeks of life for this poor little boy, and somewhere along those six weeks were many examples of intense agony and starvation. Indifference to those signs becomes reckless endangerment to that individual.

I can totally see why they got convicted of murder.

 

[Raerae]

Quote:

Originally Posted by redambition bunch of judgemental self righteous people? because of these two people, a child (THEIR child) is dead. it amounts to manslaughter at the least, and murder at the worst. both crimes deserving of jail time. your incessant s**t stirring and fight picking is getting old, rae. if you're going to start threads on highly subjective topics such as this, be prepared to accept that not everyone will agree with your views.

lol...

I don't care if you have an alternate opinion, really I don't. If you think I get emotionally involved with anything posted here, your sadly mistaken. I really don't see anyone, "picking fights" in this thread. Upset because I dont agree with you much?

You should read your own post and apply it to your own post here. I'm allowed to have a different opinion on a subject, JUST like you are. Just because it's not always the "popular" opinion, doesn't make it any less valid.

 

[Raerae]

Good posts Ratmist.

 

[lipstickandhate]

I know very little about this but I will tell you seven hours is a fast-as-hell deliberation. The evidence must have been thorough and persuasive. Believe it or not, most jury members try very, very hard to understand the instructions, burdens of proof and consider all of the evidence they've been presented. They don't usually just jump the gun b/c they dislike the defendant's looks or lifestyle.

That has been my personal experience so maybe I'm more fortunate than most! I have a lot of respect for juries and the decisions they reach. Most members are everyday people like the women and men on this board who are trying very hard to do what they think is right based on the evidence they have been presented by both sides and what they understand the law requires.

 

[Raerae]

Boy who fought cancer treatment dies
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070522/...cNhQEjUaNH2ocA
Quote:

CANTON, Ohio - An 11-year-old boy whose parents won court approval to treat their son's leukemia with an unconventional method has died after five years of fighting the cancer. ADVERTISEMENT Noah Maxin died Thursday at Rainbow Babies & Children's Hospital in Cleveland, said Rinda Schelat of Reed Funeral Home in Canton. Noah's parents, Greg and Theresa Maxin, won the right in 2002 to abandon chemotherapy treatment for their then-7-year-old son. County child welfare officials had accused the couple of neglect after the Maxins told Akron Children's Hospital they were pulling Noah out of chemotherapy three months into a 3 1/2-year treatment plan. The couple said they were concerned about the long-term effects chemotherapy would have on Noah, whose cancer had gone into remission. After researching alternative treatments, they found a doctor specializing in holistic medicine who recommended a healthier diet along with supplements to boost Noah's immune system. The parents put him back on chemotherapy after the cancer returned four months later.

Sooooo...

Life in Prison?

 

[astronaut]

I have to agree with raerae.

There can be a lot of false biased information out there when researching on veganism. I'm a vegetarian, but don't support PETA. I remember seeing a campaign they had claiming beer is healthier than than milk... yeah.

 

[MxAxC-_ATTACK]

I saw a thing on this yesterday, I forgot what channel I was watching.. OOHH it was VH1 and they were doing a top 100 and it was "Diet Fads" and they had the whole Raw food and Veganism thing on there. and It showed this couple .

The nurse said she "opened the babies mouth and it smelled like Death" ...Disgusting.

 

[MAC_Pixie04]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raerae Most families also have their kids born in a hospital. They delivered their baby at home. It just sounds like they were uneducated on the issues of childcare, or trying to live a, "natural life" or whatever. And had a tragic accident. I still dont believe life in jail is appropriate though. It's sad, but infant mortality happens, be it because of parental mistakes, or other factors. I just think it's really harsh to throw this type of a sentance on the couple. There probably already suffering from losing their baby. They really dont need life in prison on top of that. It's not like they drowned their kid by holding it's head under the water, or whatever, like some Moms do. Look at all the ways baby's die because of "accidents." You could leave a window open on a summer night, and they baby could catch a cold and die. Toddlers fall into swimming pools, because Mom or Dad looked away for a 1/2 second to go answer the door, and their kid was sitting on the grass playing. Infants/Toddlers not properly strapped into car seats in acidents. Should we put these parents in jail too? There not a danger to the community, or anyone. There is no reason to jail them for life, to do what? Teach them a lesson? I'm sure they are both dying a little inside every day because of what happened. The pain and agony of knowing you caused the death of your child is punishment enough. Jail time is excessive.

It's quite possible that hell has frozen over, because I semi-agree with you, Raerae.
I've rarely heard of people being charged for accidentally leaving their baby in the car and it overheats (how this is possible, I still don't know.) killing the baby inside.
I know social services often investigates, but rarely brings criminal charges on parents who look away and their baby falls into the pool and drowns in an instant.
Some dumbass young mother dropped a fake fingernail on the floor when she was removing them at home across town from me, her baby picked up and swallowed it, choked and nearly fell into apoxyia (sp?). No criminal charges were filed.

Now, what these parents did was extremely stupid and careless. I agree that their lifestyle led to an ignorant, preventable mistake and they lost their baby. But life in jail seems very harsh, considering there have been parents who've thrown their babies off bridges recently or drowned them in their own bathtubs, then claimed "extreme emotional defense" and got away with a slap on the wrist, a psych eval, and a lifetime hell with social services. I know a lot of vegetarians and vegans who have children, but they never let their beliefs interfere with the health and well-being of their children. If she believed breast milk was still an animal by-product, there are other options out there. Starving a baby to uphold your belief in being vegan or vegetarian is criminally neglectful. Any mother would know to nurture and feed a baby the best she can despite beliefs or opinions, and this mother failed to do that. I think life in jail is too harsh a sentence, but that some jail time is deserved.

 

[Araylan]

Babies can't be vegans. That should be common sense. They absolutely deserve a harsh sentence. I had a history teacher who was a vegetarian all the way but both times that she was pregnant she ate meat because the baby needed it. There are exceptions to everything.

 

[redambition]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Araylan Babies can't be vegans. That should be common sense. They absolutely deserve a harsh sentence. I had a history teacher who was a vegetarian all the way but both times that she was pregnant she ate meat because the baby needed it. There are exceptions to everything.

that's not entirely true.

a child can be perfectly healthy on a vegetarian or vegan diet, as can a pregnant woman... as long as they eat the right foods in appropriate amounts. it's all about nutrition!

a newborn baby should be breastfed or on formula meant for newborns. soy milk and apple juice is not appropriate.

as a side note - there is mounting evidence in the medical research field that indicates that milk isn't as great as we're told. there are links emerging between consumption of dairy and osteoporosis. (yep, dairy might actually give you the disease it's purported to prevent...) it's interesting reading.

 

[x3n]

How sad!
Poor baby!
But it pisses me off that someone can get life for killing a person, but if they starve an animal or kill it for no reason, they can only get a year.
Happened in Ohio... Or Oklahoma.
Some lady killed 650 cats and dogs and got a year.
Yep, that's right, a year.
A life is a life...
Animals should have the same rights as humans!

ETA:
Okay, I just read back on what I said about how animals should have the same rights as humans, although I now have to disagree with that. They shouldn't neccesarily have the exact rights as a human does, but they should have better rights than they do..
I don't know how I got so off topic from giving sympathy to a poor little baby to animal rights?...

 

[deedrr]

They starved a baby to death, they got what they deserved. 2 people that are "smart" enought to procreate are completely capable of telling when another living being needs nutrition and/or is getting so skinny you can see all of its bones, and feed them or ask someone else to do it. A 5 year old could figure it out.

 

[Shimmer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAC_Pixie04 It's quite possible that hell has frozen over, because I semi-agree with you, Raerae. I've rarely heard of people being charged for accidentally leaving their baby in the car and it overheats (how this is possible, I still don't know.) killing the baby inside.

Everytime I've seen that happen, the parents have been charged. I've never NOT seen them charged criminally.
Quote:

I know social services often investigates, but rarely brings criminal charges on parents who look away and their baby falls into the pool and drowns in an instant.

Why would they? There's a difference between an accident...where something unforeseen and wholly accidental happens...and a lifestyle situation where a pair of adults have the opportunity to watch their child not only fail to thrive, but starve to death. There's a HUGE difference between those two situations.
In the first, there were no criminal intentions or negligence. In the second, the entire situation was nothing BUT criminal negligence.
Brand new parents are entrusted with the responsibility to make sure their children thrive and that they grow regularly and with astonishing rapidity. An infant should never lose weight, except for that initial loss right after birth. After that, baby is supposed to regularly, rapidly, and like it's a fucking mission from God gain weight.
Quote:

Some dumbass young mother dropped a fake fingernail on the floor when she was removing them at home across town from me, her baby picked up and swallowed it, choked and nearly fell into apoxyia (sp?). No criminal charges were filed.

Why would they be? It was an accident. Criminal charges aren't filed on accidents.
Quote:

Now, what these parents did was extremely stupid and careless. I agree that their lifestyle led to an ignorant, preventable mistake and they lost their baby. But life in jail seems very harsh, considering there have been parents who've thrown their babies off bridges recently or drowned them in their own bathtubs, then claimed "extreme emotional defense" and got away with a slap on the wrist, a psych eval, and a lifetime hell with social services.

I'd love to see those cases.
Quote:

I know a lot of vegetarians and vegans who have children, but they never let their beliefs interfere with the health and well-being of their children. If she believed breast milk was still an animal by-product, there are other options out there. Starving a baby to uphold your belief in being vegan or vegetarian is criminally neglectful. Any mother would know to nurture and feed a baby the best she can despite beliefs or opinions, and this mother failed to do that. I think life in jail is too harsh a sentence, but that some jail time is deserved.

They deliberately starved the child to death because of their belief system.
My sympathy level for the parents is pretty much nil.

 

[sharkbytes]

My 2 cents: They can't claim ignorance on this one. There are certain things in life that you don't get a break for not knowing. Not realizing that there was something wrong with a child that only weighed three pounds is one of those situations. It's terribly sad that a child died because of the neglect, and frankly maybe a life sentence is the right thing for those parents, who I doubt can even take care of themselves if they think soy milk and apple juice is a proper diet for a newborn that depends on them.

It may sound harsh, but seriously, you don't get a do-over when another life was at stake and you ignored all the warning signs.

 

[athena123]

Quote:

Originally Posted by miyavilovex How sad! A life is a life... Animals should have the same rights as humans!

I know this is straying off topic but I couldn't let this pass without remark. I love animals too and think that when we take on the responsibility of taking a pet into our homes, they should be treated with love, kindness and given the basic necessities of live [food, water, shelter]. I think we get a lot more from our pets than we give and can't stand it when I hear about people who abuse animals but I do NOT think they have the same rights as humans.

Humans have the potential to choose between doing right and doing wrong, animals do not. Humans are self-aware, animals are not [although dolphins may be the exception to this]. Humans can imagine a different past, present and future, where animals do not. If I were in a burning building and I had to make a choice between saving my nephews or saving my cats and dogs, I would choose my nephews.

Back on topic, parents who impose their vegan diets on a newborn and deliberately deprive their baby of the nutrition required to grow deserve to be punished. I'm not sure I agree with a life in prison sentence, however, but yes they do deserve some time in prison. Starvation is an ugly, long, slow way to die. That little baby deserved better from the beings who brought it into this world.

 

[Araylan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by redambition that's not entirely true. a child can be perfectly healthy on a vegetarian or vegan diet, as can a pregnant woman... as long as they eat the right foods in appropriate amounts. it's all about nutrition! a newborn baby should be breastfed or on formula meant for newborns. soy milk and apple juice is not appropriate.

It's understandably possible but I don't like the idea. I'm certainly not an expert on nutrition or babies but I think that babies need to experience more (especially germs as a side note, because there is such a huge 'germophobia' thing going on in this country and personally I think it contributes to a lot of childhood problems, but that's another topic all together lol).

 

[MAC_Pixie04]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimmer Everytime I've seen that happen, the parents have been charged. I've never NOT seen them charged criminally. Why would they? There's a difference between an accident...where something unforeseen and wholly accidental happens...and a lifestyle situation where a pair of adults have the opportunity to watch their child not only fail to thrive, but starve to death. There's a HUGE difference between those two situations. In the first, there were no criminal intentions or negligence. In the second, the entire situation was nothing BUT criminal negligence. Brand new parents are entrusted with the responsibility to make sure their children thrive and that they grow regularly and with astonishing rapidity. An infant should never lose weight, except for that initial loss right after birth. After that, baby is supposed to regularly, rapidly, and like it's a fucking mission from God gain weight. Why would they be? It was an accident. Criminal charges aren't filed on accidents. I'd love to see those cases. They deliberately starved the child to death because of their belief system. My sympathy level for the parents is pretty much nil.

I'm not lessening what they did, and now that I reread my post it certainly sounds like I was. I know this was hardly and accident. A lengthy prison term is deserved absolutely, but life I think is a bit much, because like I said, I've seen parents get away with much less for doing things that are much worse. What they did was absolutely criminal, I didn't mean to imply that they did it on accident. But obviously if she was feeding it soy milk and apple juice there had to have been some level of ignorance. To give birth to it in a bathtub and never take it in for a check up displays even more stupidity and ignorance to what should be common sense. I completely agree that they deserved to be charged criminally, of course, but I think life is quite a sentence. I declare this moment "agree to disagree."

I think that you certainly know more about parenting and children than I do Shimmer because I have none and won't have any for quite some time, and I certainly have always respected and valued your opinions and thoughts on topics just as sensitive as this one. Unfortunately I just don't see it the same way. However I think we can both agree that a child was lost in this case and that is the real matter of importance regardless of how it died.

 

[redambition]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Araylan It's understandably possible but I don't like the idea. I'm certainly not an expert on nutrition or babies but I think that babies need to experience more (especially germs as a side note, because there is such a huge 'germophobia' thing going on in this country and personally I think it contributes to a lot of childhood problems, but that's another topic all together lol).

yep - germaphobia is bad.

the whole "experiencing more" - it's the choice of the parents, really. as long as the kid is properly cared for and is receiving proper nutrition from healthy foods, there shouldn't be an issue if the diet of the child excludes certain foods.