criminal actions based on religious beliefs

[Hamilton02 at aol.com]

The prosecutors (I would say obviously) are doing what is correct here  -- 
prosecuting not only her but also the other adults present.  A strong  message 
needs to be sent to all citizens that religious beliefs are no defense  to 
killing a child through lack of food and water. 
 
The question Steve raises is whether there is a mental state defense based  
on brainwashing and I would add perhaps an insanity defense.  The  brainwashing 
defense is troubling, though, if we do not have a coordinate  power to 
prosecute those who do the brainwashing.  Someone must be  responsible, or children 
are at an unacceptable risk in a civilized  society.  On the other hand, 
providing a brainwashing defense in child  death cases is extremely troubling, 
because there is no assurance that the  mother won't do the same to a future child 
(if she is not  incarcerated).    
 
A guilty but mentally ill verdict would not be a terrible result for  
society, though, because children are as safe with her in jail as in a  mental 
institution.
 
Marci
 
In a message dated 3/29/2009 4:13:20 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
stevenjamar at gmail.com writes:

The harm religious beliefs can do . . . 


_http
://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/28/AR2009032801936.html_ 
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/28/AR2009032801936.html) 

Can/must brainwashing constitutionally be a defense in a case like  this?

-- 
Prof. Steven Jamar
Howard University School of  Law
Associate Director, Institute of Intellectual Property and Social  Justice 
(IIPSJ) Inc.






**************Feeling the pinch at the grocery store?  Make meals for Under 
$10. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000002)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20090329/5d8e8019/attachment.htm>