Last week I wrote about how four 7th Day Adventists were on trial for the torture of a young woman (they called it an “exorcism”). One of the people on trial was her former boyfriend, another was her biological mother. I lamented how a person’s mind could be so mangled by religion that they’d torture someone out of love.
I’m happy to report that all four of them are going to jail. I’m livid to report the way that went down:
The three men and a woman, members of the Seventh Day Adventist Church, tied up the Cameroonian teenager in the position of Christ on the cross and kept her bound to a mattress for seven days in May 2011.When police discovered the woman at a housing estate in Grigny in the southern Paris suburbs, she was emaciated, dehydrated, in a state of shock and showed signs of having been beaten.
The four, who are all of French Caribbean origin, insisted throughout the trial that the victim, named as Antoinette, had consented to the exorcism.
The court found them guilty of kidnap, but dismissed charges of torture and barbarism, and the sentences were lower than the eight to 12 years that the prosecution had called for.
Antoinette’s former boyfriend, Eric Derond, was considered the instigator of the assault, and was given the longest sentence of six years.
Reacting to the verdict, Antoinette, now 21, said she had hoped for tougher sentences against the four, who she called “dangerous people”.
First, it doesn’t sound like she consented to what they did.
Second, the charges of torture and barbarism were dismissed? What about: “When police discovered the woman at a housing estate in Grigny in the southern Paris suburbs, she was emaciated, dehydrated, in a state of shock and showed signs of having been beaten”? That seems to be the epitome of torture and barbarism. Is the court really saying “Yeah, they kidnapped her, but who knows how she wound up beat to shit?”
I would really like to know the justification for that, but haven’t been able to find it.