From Cnn.com Therapist sentenced to 16 years in rebirthing death June 18, 2001 Posted: 2:58 PM EDT (1858 GMT) GOLDEN, Colorado (AP) -- A therapist was sentenced to 16 years in prison Monday in the death of a 10-year-old girl who suffocated while wrapped in blankets during a "rebirthing" session. Connell Watkins, 54, received the minimum sentence for the death of Candace Newmaker. The therapist could have gotten 48 years behind bars. "I failed Candace and I failed her mother," Watkins told Judge Jane Tidball. "I failed to keep Candace out of harm's way." The girl was covered in blankets and pillows meant to simulate the womb and was encouraged to push her way out during the April 2000 session. Therapists hoped she would emerge "reborn" to bond with her adoptive mother. A jury convicted Watkins of reckless child abuse in April. A second therapist, Julie Ponder, who led the session in Watkins' home, was convicted of the same charge and awaited sentencing later Monday. Prosecutor Steve Jensen argued for the maximum sentence, saying Watkins had shown little remorse. He called the therapy "torturous cruelty of a sickening and depraved nature." But the judge noted that Watkins had no criminal record and said there was no indication she had ever meant to hurt Candace. Tidball said the sentence would send a powerful message to other therapists. A videotape of the 70-minute therapy session was shown to the jury. Four adults leaned on Candace with pillows, applying several hundred pounds of pressure. The girl had been diagnosed with attachment disorder, in which children resist forming loving relationships and are violent and unmanageable. Colorado has since outlawed the New Age form of therapy. Candace's adoptive mother, Jeane Newmaker, is scheduled to go on trial in November on charges of criminally negligent child abuse. Watkins' office manager and an intern await trial in September. Copyright 2001 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Alright, I consider what this woman did to be loony, ineffective, and stupid. It was also extremely irresponsible, and the sentence was appropriate. Her malpractice resulted in the death of a little girl. But ""torturous cruelty of a sickening and depraved nature"? That's a little much for me. This represents two things that bother me: 1. How prosecutors overly villify the defendant instead of searching for the truth and 2. How anything that's New Age automatically gets demonized. Yeah, this seems pretty stupid. But not all New Age stuff is, and it bothers me that it all gets dismissed as "depraved" so easily. ------------------ Lacking inspiration at the moment...
Haven I'd have to agree with the part about "tortuous cruelty" due to the fact that 4 adults leaned on the 10 year old girl with pillows applying hundreds of pounds of pressure. That would be torture to me. Was it sickening? The end result obviously was. Was it depraved? The definition of depraved is morally corrupt or perverted. By that definition it probably wasn't depraved. ------------------
Prosecution is just doing its job. If we want the prosecution to confine itself to searching for the truth, then we'll need the defense to do likewise. But, that is the job of the jury. The prosecution is to supply every reason to convict and the defense every reason not to. This is the basis of the American judicial system. Obviously, the jury decided that the crime was not "torturous cruelty of a sickening and depraved nature" and that's what matters. As for the New Age stuff, I didn't see anything here demonizing New Age practices. Just this one practice. ------------------ RealGM Gafford Art Artisan Cakes
juanvaldez: 1. I think that's fine during the determination of guilt or innocence phase. But the prosecution has the unique ability to determine what level of conviction it's going for. As such, I don't think it should just automatically go for the highest level. Sentencing really seems to be a judgement call; shouldn't the prosecutor "seek" the penalty that he really feels appropriate? 2. Yeah, I know... it just seems a gut reaction, in general. The article just made me think about it. ------------------ Lacking inspiration at the moment...
Should the defense also seek the appropriate sentence or should they continue to argue for the minimum? Prosecutors actually don't always ask for the maximum, nor DAs the minimum. But they both haggle over the term in the interests of their respective clients. I think that can be eliminated and still have a fair system, but it would probably look more like the French system (with an investigative judge) than the current prosecution/defense system we've been using in America. Maybe the prosecution thought the maximum really was about fair. ------------------ RealGM Gafford Art Artisan Cakes
Do you really think a reasonable observer could call her actions ""torturous cruelty of a sickening and depraved nature?" That's just going way too far. I think that the "mandatory minimums" do the job of keeping the defense honest. I haven't studied the french legal system, much. Is it successful? ------------------ Lacking inspiration at the moment...
Defense lawyers are often just as guilty. Ever read The Killing of Bonnie Garland? ------------------ All hail Fadeaway's Cyberfish -- your 2000-2001 BobFinn* Fantasy Basketball League Champions!
Call me a bleeding heart, but I see no real purpose in such a sentence. It was dumb, and it was thoughtless, which makes it on the same par with accidently killing a child by some other means, but without malice. A five year probated sentence and giving up the therapist license would send the same message. We send way too many people to prison, and the natural result is parole for much more serious offenders - rapists, child molesters, murderers, and armed robbers. The grim reality is that due to overcrowding, one really bad guy will be let go so that this "menace to society" can go to prison. Dumb, dumb, dumb. And ultimately, very dangerous. ------------------ [This message has been edited by PinetreeFM60 (edited June 18, 2001).]
Pine: Ever done any criminal law, or just civil? Curious..... ------------------ I always thought "With my talent, it's only a matter of time before I'm discovered". Now I think "With my talent, it's only a matter of time before I'm found out".
I've never done ANY criminal. Frankly, I'm troubled by both sides of the docket. Prosecutors and police lie to make cases, and the defense is no better. I know the system is supposed to work by both sides zealously doing their part, and I know lying goes on in civil cases, but at least it is just about money. I could never represent someone who was guilty, but I could never be responsible for sending someone to jail, either. It is so corrupted. Poor kids get jail time for a few rocks of crack, while someone else gets to be President. That sucks. ------------------
