French Court Hears Case of Exorcism That Left Teenager Emaciated and Injured In Paris

180px-saintfrancisborgia_exorcismThere is an interesting case out of France this week where four former members of the Seventh Day Adventist Church have been arrested and charged with torture, barbarism, and kidnapping of Antoinette, a 19-year-old Cameroonian. Their defense is novel: consent. Her former boyfriend, Eric Deron, who fashions himself to be something of a prophet, insisted that they were performing an exorcism by tying her to a mattress in a crucifixion position and kept her alive with small amounts of oil and water.

Antoinette was found in a housing project emaciated, dehydrated, in a state of shock after a week of the “exorcism.” They began the exorcism after Deron said that Antoinette jumped him while babbling incomprehensibly.

The Seventh Day Adventist Church issued a statement that the man had been expelled from the Church before his arrest.

In the United States, consent defenses are not viable where the consent is to an illegal act or based on coercion or threat or mistake or secured from an individual who lacks capacity to consent. It would seem that this case raised multiple barriers to the defense.

11 thoughts on “French Court Hears Case of Exorcism That Left Teenager Emaciated and Injured In Paris

  1. “I agree with Gene… Consent has to be valid… Under these circumstances… Probably not..”

    But the question is why our Prof suggested that the consent defense was ‘novel’.

    It seems to me that this defense would be normal, appropriate, and strong in cases like this relating to religious practice. How would you defend in a case relating to baptism (say, attempted murder by drowning)?

    The instructing magistrate (I think that’s the appropriate official) would have to find that consent was not or could not have been given. That’s likely to be contradicted by witnesses. Do we know if the victim is cooperating with the authorities?

    BTW, is anyone else suffering because they took Maigret off MHz on Tuesdays?

  2. Yeah, but the atheist fascists running the government are soft killing (read murder) tens of millions of Americans with cancer viruses in vaccines they forced and continue to force on school children.

    So stop straining at gnats and swallowing camels.

    The atheist fascist elites are going to make sure you continue…ahem…are forced at gunpoint to take them through Ovomitcare.

    But go ahead, dwell on one foreigner who is none of our business. And ignore the murderers spreading cancer and death from on high.

    http://www.infowars.com/merck-developer-admits-vaccines-contain-hidden-cancer-viruses-derived-from-diseased-monkeys/

    http://www.infowars.com/msnbc-in-cover-up-of-manifestly-provable-population-control-plan/

  3. Darren,

    I agree with Gene… Consent has to be valid… Under these circumstances… Probably not..

    Raff,

    The devil wears red….. Scalia is just a disciple….

    Darrel,

    Man you’re right on target….. All criminals deserve no trial…. No defense…. Try again….. Though Bush I, Shrub and Obama greatly reduced the 4th it’s still the law here….. Unless you’re in the military…. Then you’ve given consent…..

  4. What’s next, “Yaa but, she gave me permission to kill her” ??? From the scum of the Criminal Lawyering cesspool…….

  5. Darren,

    I think more to the point is her behavior before consenting (if accurately described) firmly calls her ability to grant valid consent into question.

  6. I think the consent was granted to participate in the exorcism. I doubt knowing the horror she faced, consent would be certain.

  7. I don’t see why the consent defense should be considered unusual or unlikely to succeed.

    I know the frenchies have a very different legal system that I don’t understand. But in this case it would be up to the judge to find that the victim didn’t consent, was unable to consent, or that there was threat, force, etc.

    It’s no good tut-tutting them. People do all kinds of things, from circumcision to scourging, with consent, under religious influence.

  8. The Seventh Day Adventists have it all wrong. The sequence of days is important. On the Eighth Day God created Dog. God sent Dog to Earth to watch out over mankind. Even the likes of this schmuck in France. I will bet that he does not have a dog.

Comments are closed.