Posted on 03/08/2010 1:06:06 PM PST by jazusamo
OREGON CITY -- Clackamas County Circuit Court Judge Steven Maurer sentenced Jeffrey and Marci Beagley to 16 months in prison this afternoon, calling the couple’s decision to not seek medical care for their 16-year-old son, Neil Beagley, a “crime that was a product of an unwillingness to respect the boundaries of freedom of expression.”
Marci Beagley sobbed as the sentencing was being read, and shortly after, defense attorney Wayne Mackeson objected to the sentence.
Jeffrey and Marci Beagley were found guilty of criminally negligent homicide after a two-week trial that focused on the death of 16-year-old Neil Beagley, who died in June 2008 of complications involved with a urinary tract obstruction.
“The idea of sending Jeffrey and Marci Beagley to prison is heart-wrenching,” Maurer said in a lengthy explanation of his sentence. “I think, certainly, that I’m in complete agreement with the jurors who observed that the Beagleys are good people.”
But the decision was necessary, Maurer said. “The magnitude of their crimes simply warrants it.”
Maurer touched upon religious freedoms, saying he thought the community was very respectful to beliefs from congregations like the Followers of Christ Church, which believes in faith-healing at the exclusion of most medical care.
But there are boundaries for religious freedom, he said.
“It is up to us as a community and a criminal justice system, and government, to take very seriously that societal obligation … and recognize that investment and interest we have in each and every child,” he said.
The sentence could be a “pause for reflection” or re-examination for the Followers of Christ church, said Maurer, who added that he believed the church was capable of “softening the rigidity” of their beliefs on excluding medical care.
The courtroom was packed with Beagley supporters, including their daughter Raylene Worthington and her husband Carl Brent Worthington. Both were tried in July 2009 for second-degree manslaughter and criminal mistreatment in the death of their daughter, Ava Worthington. Carl Brent Worthington was found guilty of criminal mistreatment, while the two were acquitted of all other charges.
The Beagleys and Worthingtons are members of the Followers of Christ Church. Members of the Oregon City church have a lengthy history of child deaths from lack of medical care that influenced a 1999 law eliminating the religious freedom defense in cases involving the welfare of a child.
Maurer repeated something he stated during the Worthington sentencing: the case was not a referendum on the church.
But ignoring the church’s impact on the couple would be self-deluding, he said. “The church is imprinted upon them,” he said.
Before Maurer’s sentencing, prosecutor Greg Horner urged the court to impose the presumptive sentence of 16 to 18 months for the case. “Only a penitentiary sentence reflects the seriousness of this crime,” Horner argued.
It was necessary to consider the notion of deterrence in the case, Horner said, referring to the close-knit church community that had been closely watching the Beagley and Worthington trials.
“The court has the opportunity to deliver a clear message that this idea that one can let a child die while they’re praying without medical attention is not supportable,” Horner said. “It must be addressed.”
Horner spoke generally about similar cases involving citizens who had no criminal intent and no criminal record – those cases included sentences of up to 16 to 18 months, he said, and this case should be treated the same way. Allowing Neil to die was “outrageous,” Horner said.
“That lifetime of loving was erased by the days and weeks and months in the failure to provide the very basics of what a parent is required to do,” he said.
Defense attorneys were adamant in recommending probation without prison time, noting that neither defendant had a criminal record.
“Prison would be more destructive than productive,” said defense attorney Steve Lindsey, who represents Marci Beagley.
Jeffrey Beagley's attorney Wayne Mackeson spoke of the close-knit family and asked the judge to note that Neil Beagley’s death was seen in the shadow of the death of Ava Worthington, who died a few months before Neil.
He also said Neil Beagley’s faith was an integral part of the teenager’s life. Neil’s level of maturity, age and his religious beliefs should be considered by the court, Mackeson said.
The Beagley’s situation as a “unique case” with “unique defendants,” according to Mackeson.
Lindsey cited other faith-healing cases that resulted in probation, including one from Minnesota, in which a young girl died of diabetes, and one from Oregon, in which a boy died of leukemia.
Lindsey offered his case for a probationary sentence earlier in the hearing, when he called Courtney Campbell, a philosophy professor who focuses in biomedical ethics at Oregon State University, as a witness on behalf of Marci Beagley.
Campbell recommended probation coupled with education and counseling from the medical community, saying that using “persuasive measures” is ethically preferable to legal sanctions such as prison.
“Probation accompanied by education serves the needs for holding the person accountable for their actions and can prevent similar actions from being carried out in the future,” he said, adding that it can provide for the social welfare of society.
Prosecutor Greg Horner hammered Campbell for not knowing all the specifics of the case, and asked if he and his colleagues recommended education and collaboration with the medical community before a death of the child.
“Ideally, yes,” Campbell said.
Horner also asked Campbell if he thought the Beagleys should be treated differently than other people who had been convicted of criminally negligent homicide and had been sentenced to the 16 to 18 months of jail.
“I think there are different mechanisms in which you can discharge legal responsibility” and personal accountability, Campbell answered.
Marci and Jeff Beagley Ping!
That boy must have been in torment before he died. Old enough to call 911 for himself. Did he believe he had o be healed by faith, or was he mentally disabled?
Believing that you should be healed only by faith and not by medicine is like believing that you should be fed only by manna.
Freedom of expression? Did the judge really say that?
There was a man whose farm was located on the banks of a flood-swollen river. As the water rose, a neighbor drove up in a Jeep, urging him to leave before the farm was flooded.
“Oh, no,” said the man confidently, “God will save me.”
The water rose higher, and the man was forced to move into the second story of the farmhouse. A police boat soon came, and the officers called for the man to hurry and get into their boat.
“Oh, no, that won’t be necessary,” the man insisted. “God will save me.”
Finally the house was completely engulfed in water, and a Coast Guard helicopter swooped in to rescue the man, now perched on the roof. Again he refused. Just then, a huge wave of water swept over the house, and the man drowned.
When he got to heaven, he stormed at the Lord, asking WHY God had let him die when his faith had been so strong.
“What do you mean?” asked the heavenly Father. “I sent a Jeep, a boat, and a helicopter ... and you wouldn’t budge!”
I've noticed, though, that when you interview anyone who's had a parent involved in one of these non-doctor cults there's always been an exception for broken bones.
They send you out to get your bones set. They'll pray for you themselves if you get bone cancer, but they'll resist a doctor in that case.
A couple of decades back a group similar to this was studied in Idaho. The researcher was amazed to find that they had about the highest infant death rate in the world. Apparantly they, themselves, elect to do nothing beyond prayer for sick infants.
Now I can understand the concern for some of them that it seems the doctors can do nothing at all for "failure to thrive" or "colitis" or anemia, or intermittent porphyria, or.... ~ but today's doctors are become more educated and recognize that all these diseases can have a single genetic cause ~
It's time to go see the physicians. The shamen don't know even if they're called church elders these days.
Sorry.
The Beagleys have every right to commit medical suicide themselves, but when they make this decision for someone else - they should go to jail - which is where they belong.
No tears shed and they are not “good people” for having done this.
“Believing that you should be healed only by faith (sic) is like believing that you should be fed only by manna.”
To me these people seek to test God, rather than being tested by God. They say “God provide a miracle for me upon demand!”.... with their son's life riding on the outcome.
From all the previous testimony it was said the boy made the decision to refuse medical care.
You have to remember though that he was raised from a baby with the parents dictating (brainwashing) those beliefs.
He was of legal age to seek medical help without permission from his parents but not to refuse it according to OR law. The parents were responsible for him until age 18.
It is not faith but presumption is what these people practice.
I’m confused, do we want government out of our decisions or in it?
I am not a fan of faith healing but this decision is a disgrace. You can’t put a christmas tree up in a town square because it violates the “separation between church and sate” but the state can send people to jail because
“It is up to us as a community and a criminal justice system, and government, to take very seriously that societal obligation … and recognize that investment and interest we have in each and every child,” he said.”
Once again, the idea of a “societal obligation” and commun-ity” takes precedence over freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution. I disagree with the Beagley’s decision but it was clearly a religious decision. It’s not the place of the government to tell them they need to be penalized.
Disgraceful.
What part of “You shall not tempt the LORD your God” do they not understand?
Yes, and that has been posted over the last couple years in comments after articles several times. The people of this church refuse care from MDs but seek dental and eye care, go figure.
Couldn’t agree more!
I believe there’s been a precedent set for many years that the government has a resposibility to protect children from many things, including negligent parents.
I can only say I wish this boy and his young niece were still here to discuss this.
Oregon changed their law on this a little over ten years ago because of this church and the large number of children buried in their graveyard.
I may well be free to decide that my daily diet should consist of nothing but Coke, Twizzlers, and Twinkies - but that is not a decision that a parent could reasonably make for their child.
Do you think we should go all “Saudi Arabia” and figure that parents have the absolute power of life and death over their children?
“Do you think we should go all “Saudi Arabia” and figure that parents have the absolute power of life and death over their children?”
I’m just curious where and how the line is drawn. If the government can step in at will, then I reckon they can force your child to have an abortion for the better good, right?
Thank you. This same government decides what we, as adults, can eat, think, how we “protect” ourselves in a vehicle, on a motorcycle, guns, etc., etc.
I am amazed how so called conservatives on this board support a government interfering in a private family matter. How about that same government telling you how to discipline your child, when your child should be educated regarding sexual matters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.