tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2506514005426983269.post5105979892720296896..comments2023-10-28T08:02:44.565-05:00Comments on illusory tenant: Live-blogging the Neumann sentencingillusory tenanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08524761974822871419noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2506514005426983269.post-53368919855239746212009-10-08T08:02:15.324-05:002009-10-08T08:02:15.324-05:00Thanks for dropping by, Professor, and for your co...Thanks for dropping by, Professor, and for your comments.<br /><br />By way of a partial answer to the Class D felony, I would imagine that, for one thing, the State was precluded from charging the offense under Sec. 948 (Crimes Against Children) by ยง 948.03(6), which provides an affirmative defense for "treatment by spiritual means through prayer alone for healing."<br /><br />And I think the defense filed a pretrial motion to dismiss the felony charge based on the foregoing exemption, which was denied.illusory tenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08524761974822871419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2506514005426983269.post-32873933422480261782009-10-07T13:56:56.272-05:002009-10-07T13:56:56.272-05:00Thanks for the live-blogging link. This is a fasc...Thanks for the live-blogging link. This is a fascinating case. I don't disagree with the judge's slap-on-the-wrist sentence. The degree of a defendant's punishment should reflect his blameworthiness, that is, the extent to which he has deliberately chosen to do something that he understands to be harmful or dangerous to others. If the Neumanns sincerely believed that God would cure their daughter, then there is little blame that should be placed on them for choosing not to seek medical attention. I suppose there might be some blameworthiness in the antecedent choice to believe in a God who disapproves of modern medicine, but placing blame on this basis raises large First Amendment concerns. <br /><br />By the way, the logic here -- prison terms should reserved for people who choose to do things that they understand to present a high risk of harm -- might cast doubt on prison terms for other defendants, including many drug dealers. <br /><br />In any event, given the state's apparent recognition that a long prison term was inappropriate for the Neumanns, I am mystified why the case was charged as felony homicide. The wide gap between the charge and the sentencing recommendation sends mixed messages, to say the least.Michael O'Hearhttp://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/noreply@blogger.com