We have another case of religious homicide and a comparatively light sentence (For a prior column, click here). In the case of Javon Thompson, he was starved to death because he would not say “Amen” after meals. The mother received no jail time and five years probation.
Ria Ramkissoon, the mother, argued that she was effectively brainwashed by the One Mind Ministry’s leader, Queen Antoinette – who ordered the termination of food.
Julie Drake insisted “[t]here was no malice in her at all regarding this baby. None. And we want to punish people for acts that are malicious.” Wow, no malice in starving a child? I can certainly understand the lenient sentence if the prosecutors agreed with the brainwashing claim, but is the lack of malice relevant in a starvation case?
Ramkissoon admitted guilt and testified against other members of the Christian-based church. The plea bargain includes the bizarre element if Javon rises from the dead, the plea agreement is off. I find the inclusion of such a condition to be highly inappropriate and should not have been accepted by the court. These agreements are not just between prosecutors and a defendant. They are agreements with the people of that state. They should be confined to the crime and the sentence and not incorporate religious elements. More importantly, it is legitimizing the woman’s continued faith in the teachings of this cult.
For the full story, click here.