1 2 3 4 5
#932748
Caretaker
I'm with Giveitaday. The first thing I thought was "oh fuck, her fundie friends will see this as a victory."
It doesn't matter that the child won't be resurrected - the raptards will never see the Rapture, but they still wait for it - because they'll never admit that this was an evil, batshit thing to do. "Even the authorities agreed that she can only be charged until Javon resurrects! Aaaany day now, wait and see!"
I'd rather they'd tossed the plea out and gone for the throat. Nobody could possibly say the prosecution wouldn't be successful one way or another.
The impact it has on fellow homocidal fundies might be negligible, but it's a 'might' that I'm not very happy with. Giveitaday explained that bit better than me, though.
4/1/2009 5:42:52 PM
#932749
Amanda
Seriously, there must be something mentally wrong with her. I hope they give her some psychiatric help as part of her sentence, which I doubt will be overturned anytime soon.
4/1/2009 5:43:33 PM
#932756
Beltaine
@#932679, LabRat
"I hope the other convicts take her food away.
Every day. "
Amen.
4/1/2009 6:02:26 PM
#932772
Grigadil
I think it was mentioned before, but just take the bitch out back and put a bullet through her skull, with the promise she'd be resurrected immediately after Javon.
The cult leader? Kill her slowly.
4/1/2009 7:17:47 PM
#932773
raindrops
If the agreement would also bring the others in this sick cult to face justice, I'm willing to ignore the resurrection part.
4/1/2009 7:20:22 PM
#932774
mike-mike
Yeah... no. Do not pass go, go straight to jail you crazy, bitch.
4/1/2009 7:26:11 PM
#932781
@Giveitaday, Caretaker: Nothing could convince folks this crazy that their delusion is incorrect. And they certainly aren't looking to the legal system for confirmation. They're certain they're right in this, and, barring intense psychiatric treatment, they will never believe otherwise. Might as well save the taxpayers the expense of an open/shut trial.
4/1/2009 7:42:55 PM
#932786
"...agreed to the clause." gold.
sure lady, if he get's back up, you get off.
4/1/2009 8:24:01 PM
#932800
Boxtop
EDIT: Nevermind. My joke failed miserably.
4/1/2009 9:33:50 PM
#932804
TB Tabby
Are we sure this wasn't an April Fool's Day joke?
4/1/2009 9:54:19 PM
#932813
aaa
One month later, corpse makes quite an awful smell.
4/1/2009 10:37:56 PM
#932835
Journeyer
I feel a little bad for laughing at this, but I can't help it.
4/1/2009 11:53:02 PM
#932851
Thundersqueaks
"Ramkissoon and the others are accused of denying Javon food after the group's leader, a 40-year-old woman who goes by the name Queen Antoinette, decreed the boy was a demon since he refused to say "amen" after meals,"
Imagine what would have happened if the boy had done something seriously wrong.
Sarcasm aside, I'd say this Queen Antoinette should be the one to suffer the worst sentence.
4/2/2009 2:16:01 AM
#932857
David B.
If the boy did happen to resurrect (err, for the sake of argument), I should think having the supposedly deceased victim turn up alive and well is probably enough to get any conviction quashed on it's own. Was there any need for a special clause?
4/2/2009 2:43:41 AM
#932861
Xotan
On principle the state should have no truck with this sort of lunacy. The question of whether the child will arise again is a religious, not a secular one. Therefore it is of no concern to the state under the First Amerndment, surely?
Glad the board is back... Thought it was gone forever! Thanks for having it resurrected. :-)
4/2/2009 3:05:49 AM
#932868
Eden
Her faith either is very strong, or she is very desperate. After all, according to the article, her kid is dead since 12/2006, without having showed any tendencies to raise from the dead during the whole time.
It is sick, of course, to allow your cult leader to let your kid starve to death, but I have to admit that her faith in his resurrection, after being dead for 2.5 years, is somehow amusing
4/2/2009 3:46:43 AM
#932873
Metatron
Good bargaining by the prosecutor. If it were all so easy.
4/2/2009 4:02:47 AM
#932875
HeathenAngel
I'm not so sure I like the idea of prosecutors fueling her delusions. I'd like to see them starve the bitch like she did her child. And she shouldn't be "comforted" by the thought that her child is going to return... she she be confronted with the tragic and horrifying reality that she murdered her own child, and now she is going to pay, and pay hard for it.
4/2/2009 4:07:23 AM
#932877
ModernBunny
This is just depressing. That poor kid.
4/2/2009 4:10:08 AM
#932896
Originally posted by David B.
Was there any need for a special clause?
It sounds like she only plead guilty if the prosecution agreed to the clause. So if the aim is to avoid the expense of a full trial, yeah, it was needed.
Originally posted by Xotan
The question of whether the child will arise again is a religious, not a secular one.
The dead rising from the grave is only religious because it's never been observed in reality. If the boy were to suddenly resurrect, it would certainly be part of secular reality as much as religious. All the secular proof you need would be up and walking around.
And I don't believe the prosecution is making any value judgment on whether or not Ms. Ramkissoon's condition for release will actually come to pass.
If this highly unlikely event occur should come to pass, they'll release her. No guarantee that it will or won't happen.
4/2/2009 5:53:17 AM
#932902
Orion
I saw a few people ask why the defense lawyer didn't enter an insanity plea. The reason would be that the defendant would have to agree with the lawyers recommendation (if he's worth his salt I bet you he recommended she plead insanity). Fundies are under the impression that they are totally sane. So they'll never agree to insanity pleas. The only way you get insanity plea without client agreement is if they are too mentally unstable (evaluated by doctors) to appear in court safely.
Also given the immense clogging of the American courts it is a greater victory for the prosecution to give up the "opportunity" to get her for more to keep the case from dragging into a lengthy trial.
So some of you are concerned about the message it sends or the precedent it sets? Well to be honest the clause is meaningless, as stated earlier if the victim of a murder/manslaughter were to resurrect and start walking around just fine then the accused would be either:
A: Set free immediately anyway as murder charges are always overturned when the victim turns up alive (it has happened, people disappear for perfectly mundane reasons and someone gets blamed).
OR B: The person is taken out of prison and re-tried (double jeopardy doesn't apply because it's a different charge) for assault/ battery/negligence/attempted murder/etc
If you read the article you can see that it's almost being treated as an insanity plea because the woman is getting psychiatric help as part of the sentence.
4/2/2009 6:16:54 AM
#932927
freako104
Makes me damn ashamed I am from Maryland. I hope the cult is broken up and she does many fucking years
4/2/2009 7:31:18 AM
#932949
draco_nite
IMO, if ANY victim of murder is resurrected, the charges should be dropped.
4/2/2009 8:10:21 AM
#932969
smartz
Best plea bargain ever.
4/2/2009 9:19:35 AM
#932970
smartz
Oh, even if the charges are dropped if the boy resurrects, the boy will then bring charges against her for killing him and for torture. Win/win situation!
4/2/2009 9:23:04 AM
1 2 3 4 5