From MSNBC.com: Five New Zealanders, who attempted to exorcize demons from a family member, have been convicted of manslaughter. They used water to try to "flush out" the demons from the body of Janet Moses, who eventually drowned. They also tried to get at the demons they thought they saw in the eyes of a fourteen year old family member; she now suffers from eye damage.
The prosecution did not question the defendants' good faith belief that Ms. Moses was possessed by demons. But, said, prosecutor Grant Burston, this proceeding was "not about an inquiry into whether demons or spirits or makutu exist — this is all about whether the accused are guilty of the manslaughter of Janet Moses."
The defense attorney told the jurors that Ms. Moses asked her family for help, believing that she was possessed. "The family has a process of ridding themselves of evil spirits that had been done for generations and generations."
A jury acquitted three other defendants. All of those on trial were Maoris, who have apparently practiced these rituals for centuries. A judge will sentence those convicted later this summer.
I understand why the defense attorney, Paul Paino, would mount the type of defense he did. But one cannot consent to be killed, at least under U.S. law, and I doubt New Zealand law would be different in this respect. Even if one said to someone one trusted, "Do anything to cure me of this horrible affliction--I don't care what!" that does not amount to a license literally to do anything including end the life of the individual. Clearly, the death happened unintentionally--that's why the defendants faced manslaughter charges. If one suffers from an affliction--mental or physical--one must seek treatment from a licensed practitioner, and here I mean licensed, or recognized by the state. If the afflicted person can't seek the treatment, because of physical inability or mental disability, then a relative or friend try to do so.
Naturally, the suggestion that exorcism is not a proper treatment for the belief that one is possessed by demons raises the question of freedom of religion. But from the news accounts, it's not clear how much of a role freedom of religion, or protection of the rights of aboriginal peoples, played in the defense, here. Here's another account of the verdict, from the Sydney Morning Herald.
Comments