Last week the Worthington trial concluded in Oregon. I'm not sure how much national press this received, so here is a rundown of the basics:
The Worthingtons are members of a church that uses prayer and rituals to treat illness and distrusts doctors and the medical industry. Commonly called "faith healing". Last year their toddler daughter died of pneumonia and a blood infection, at the time of her death she also has a large growth on her neck. She never saw a doctor and prosicuters claim that her condition was treatable. Both parents were being charged with manslaughter and criminal mistreatment. In the end, the father was convicted of mistreatment and the mother was acquitted. The basis for her acquittal was that in their religious beliefs wives must always defer to their husbands, so even if she wanted to take the child to a doctor, she wouldn't have because her husband was opposed to it. This is the first high-profile "faith healing" trail in the state and was possible because of a law passed a few years ago saying that people couldn't use their religion as a defense for crimes.
This situation has brought public debate about a whole host of issues from freedom of religion, government interference in raising children and criticism of western medicine. I have strong feelings on those issues, as I'm sure most people do, however there are plenty of places to discuss those, let’s not dwell on them here. I'm writing to gain a feminist perspective on the acquittal of the woman.
The mother's defense was that she defers to her husband and therefore takes no responsibility in the girl's death. The news reporting insinuates that this a religious reason, but the law (as I understand it, I'm not a lawyer) is that religion cannot be a defense for a crime. So does that mean her defense was that she was being controlled by her husband? In my world-view that makes her a victim of domestic abuse. And from that perspective, am I victim blaming when I feel anger and toward her?
Mostly, I keep thinking that if I were on that jury I would have convicted her. I am angry at both the parents for what I see as severe neglect and I cannot wrap my mind around the idea of watching a child die and not rushing them to the ER. I cannot really believe that the mother simply was letting her husband call the shots and unless she either was in agreement about the anti-doctor stance (which seems to be the case) or she was being forced to defer to her husband/family/church. Either way, I'm angry at her. I'm angry at the foolishness of not wanting a doctor and I'm angry about not standing up to the people controlling her. The latter sounds like victim blaming when I really think about it, the former does not.
I don't want to contribute to the culture of blaming victims for crimes against them, so I don't know how to discuss this topic. I'd like to hear some feminist perspectives of this, particularly the victim-blaming aspect .
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Am I victim blaming?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15174
She can be both a victim of domestic abuse, and culpable for a crime she committed. I also think it's important to keep in mind that the real victim in this story is their child. I also think it's necessary to distinguish between "she let her husband make the decision" and "her husband did not let her be part of making the decision." In any case, I don't think it's really relevant - it's pretty obvious that she agreed with her husband, and I think that's enough to make it morally unambiguous that she should be in jail too.
On a second note, I always find the amount of infantilization of women in the criminal justice system troubling. I think the same sexism that makes people unable to believe a woman can/should be able to make decisions for themselves contributes to people just not being able to believe a woman could of her own free will decide to commit a crime.
I hadn't even considered the infantizing aspect. You're absolutely right about that.
This is going to be painful for me to write because this is an area of extreme cognitive dissonance for me and I've spent years trying to sort out how I can reconcile this.
I don't think she didn't do anything. She prayed for this baby as her religious doctrine stated she should do. She did what her beliefs guided her to do, including deferring to her husband. It's not pretty; it's nowhere near glamorous and it's certainly not mainstream. She did not, however, sit back and watch her baby die. She did what she thought was best according to her own set of beliefs.
With that being said, I have a horrendous time thinking she would not rebel or do anything while her baby was dying, no matter how against her grain. This is your baby and you're its mother. Do what you can. Do whatever you can, even the ethically dubious, to try to help your baby.
These issues are, again, very painful, but I don't think you're victim blaming because I don't think she's a victim by her own standards.
"I don't think she's a victim by her own standards." That is an awesome point, and I think one I need to learn to consider more often, in this and other situations.
I think that in a lot of these issues, agency is taken away from the woman in question. She is still a person who makes choices and has perspective. Even though she's in a fringe group doesn't mean she can't make the decision to do something radical or not.
I don't see why this is anything to do with feminism. Millions of women are abused by their husbands/families/men and their societies, but they have a realisation that their child comes first and do anything to make that child thrive.
There are also many many women who do whatever they can to escape the abuse - why do you think refuges exist and are full of women and children?
This woman and her husband KNEW the child was dying, and would also have KNOWN that medical care would have helped. Murder on both counts I am afraid. Nothing to do with feminism and I am scandalised by the courts decision.
The idea that women who don't escape from abuse are asking to be abused is exactly what victim blaming is about. It is unfeminist and exactly what I was worried about doing.
We can applaud and be happy for all the victims who are able to escape while realizing that it is the abusers that are responsible.
The victim was the child - who is now dead.
Why should her beliefs grant her more immunity than they did her husband? Fundamentally the actus rea, and the mens rea were the same. Was the specific issue of domestic violence raised? Did she have a credible fear of her husband? If these issues weren't raised by her, I wouldn't think of her as a victim of domestic violence.
It would seem to me the equitable thing would for either both of them to be acquitted or both of them to be convicted.
There are differences between being forcibly controlled by someone and choosing to go along with everything they say.
"Why should her beliefs grant her more immunity than they did her husband? Fundamentally the actus rea, and the mens rea were the same."
I agree with that statement. That is the key to the whole argument.
Exactly. If both parties have agency, then both parties are equally responsible... whatever that responsibility is judged to be.
I think I need to know more about the case and the mother, child, father, their families and their religion to make an accurate judgement. However, as it stands I think that people can be brainwashed into believing they are doing what is best even if they are not. Second, I do not think anybody has the right to tell a parent what to do with their children's health. I may not like that the parents allowed their children to die but they thought they were doing what was best for the child's health. If they do not want to have to have modern medicine treat their child they should have that right without having interference from judgemental people who think that modern medicine is god. I am going to school to become a doctor and I don't even think that western medicine is the end all be all for everything. There is not a single proper treatment for everyone. And who is to say that the child would not have died anyways? So if the child had died undr modern medicine it wouldn't be a fault of the parents but because they chose a different treatment plan it was? Think about how insane that is for a minute before you go on further. But this is not what you are asking for. If this woman was truly brainwashed, which I already said I do not have enough information to judge whether or not this is true, then you are victim blaming. If a brainwashed woman makes a decision based on that brainwashing and you pass judgements on those actions which you have clearly done then you are blaming a victim of that type of abuse. And yes brainwashing a human being to believe something is absolutely abuse
Both parents were part of the same community and therefore the same 'brain-washing' so why did they get different sentences? And not to take the child to see medical practitioners is insane.
No. It is not "insane."
They were acting on their religious beliefs. Religion is not a mental illness, and a mental illness/condition/[insert label] is not a set of religious beliefs. Faith healing when life-saving medical treatment is accessible may be immoral and illogical, but it is not "insane."
</vent>
@ Audentia, I was using the terminology of the comment I was replying to: "Think about how insane that is for a minute before you go on further"
If someone says "That's so gay" in a post, does that make it okay to say, "No, actually, this is gay" in your reply?
"Religion is not necessarily a mental illness, and a mental illness/condition/[insert label] is not necessarily a set of religious beliefs."
There, fixed that for you.
"Faith healing when life-saving medical treatment is accessible ...is ... "insane."
Fixed that too.
I do not think anybody has the right to tell a parent what to do with their children's health. I may not like that the parents allowed their children to die but they thought they were doing what was best for the child's health.
That is ridiculous. Parents do not own their children; they merely are responsible for them. To deny access to medical care to someone unable to get it for themselves should be punished by the law whether the person you denied is your child or your adult spouse.
"...Second, I do not think anybody has the right to tell a parent what to do with their children's health..."
Harming someone's health is certainly one of the ways to do something with her or his health.
According to your standards, nobody would have the right to tell a parent not to harm her or his child's health. No right to say "don't strangle your child." No right to say "don't beat up your child." No right to say "don't rape your child." No right to say "don't mutilate your child." No right to say "don't eat your child." Hmm...
"I do not think anybody has the right to tell a parent what to do with their children's health."
So, you think Child Protective Services can be dismantled, then?
How does this work again? Is it wrong to beat a child to death, but perfectly fine to let him die of malnutrition? No? It's wrong to let him die of lack of food, but perfectly fine to let him die of lack of medical care? It's wrong to let him die of lack of medical care, but perfectly fine to let him die of obviously ineffective medical care?
"... but they thought they were doing what was best for the child's health."
My religion tells me that children should be raised on a steady diet of Jolt cola and pea gravel. Illnesses should be treated by application of a mixture of Smucker's Grape Jelly and 10w40 motor oil, with hourly recitations of "Jabberwocky." I've only lost two children thus far, one to a tooth infection and one who bled to death from a meal of broken glass (I was out of gravel that day), but I know I'm getting stronger with The Lord: I've been practicing my British accent for those recitations, next time the need arises.
No, you're perpetrator blaming, which is what you're supposed to do and what the court should have done. The victim is the child, not either of her lethally negligent parents.
"The mother's defense was that she defers to her husband and therefore takes no responsibility in the girl's death."
I don't think there is really enough information to say.
There was no indication that she was forced to enter into this religion, that she was forced to stay in it, or that her husband forced her to submit to him.
if participating in this religion was a choice, then she should be held accountable for it.
"The basis for her acquittal was that in their religious beliefs wives must always defer to their husbands, so even if she wanted to take the child to a doctor, she wouldn't have because her husband was opposed to it."
The only way the ruling makes sense is if this religion is a cult. in that sort of situation, talking about her "choices" is senseless.
again, I don't think there is really enough information to say.
Like everyone else has said, it's impossible to gauge her responsibility without knowing more about the case. In the event that she simply deferred to her husband and did not step in she should have recieved an identical sentence. However in that case I really think she would have been convicted, it's pretty cut and dry when you think about it. I suspect there was an issue of abuse in there somewhere, and that is what got her off.
I do think the husband deserved his sentence. Because you know what? Modern medicine is god. We have developed foolproof ways to cure many diseases with out knowledge of the human body. If the husband had killed his child to save him from some kind of hell, would that be okay? After all, he's just "following his beliefs".
However in that case I really think she would have been convicted, it's pretty cut and dry when you think about it.
This assumes jurors cannot make errors in their application of the law.
This story makes me so angry. Why is religion an acceptable reason for breaking the law? If you want to belive in a fairytale written over 3,000 years ago it's fine as long as it is not at the expensive of other people. I have no simpathy for people who put their religion and their spouse before their childrean.
This made me so angry. Why does religion give you a free pass to break the law and to hurt other people? If people want to belive in a fairytale written over 3000 years ago fine. That dose'nt excuse your behavior. I have no simpathy for anyone who puts their religion or their spouse before their childrean.
soooo...in his case, they deemed that his actions meant more than his religion...but in HER case, her religion was more important than her actions?
...that's just...very backwards and so obviously wrong