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.
18 thoughts on “Mother Starves 16-Month Baby To Death — Receives No Jail Time”
This is unbelievable.
“Baron Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben”
Ah yes! The Park Rangers at Valley Forge give a great lecture on von Steuben. Yes, they talk about Ben Franklin’s recommendation and Hamilton and Nat Greene helping von Steuben to draft his training program for the army … because of the language problem.
The Park Service does an excellent job in their presentation at Valley Forge. One can almost hear von Steuben yelling across the fields.
I’m glad you mentioned him as I haven’t thought of that tough, old (figure of speech for he wasn’t that old) bird and his dog in a long time. Another serendipitous appearance.
The Washington Memorial Chapel located there is quite lovely and a wonderful venue for performing Mozart … the Bell Tower and Carillon are sublime.
“Out of all the founding fathers, I find Hamilton’s presence amongst that body of accidental revolutionaries the most serendipitous.”
Personally, I think the most fortuitous of all the characters that crossed the American Revolution’s stage was Baron Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben. An unemployed Prussian soldier, bearing only a letter of introduction from Benjamin Franklin, this tough “drill sergeant” who spoke almost no English, turned a ragtag band of farmers and tradesmen into a formidable fighting force over the course of a winter and spring. No mean feat when you consider his opponent was the world’s first modern super power.
“who can think for me, as well as execute orders.”
I think Washington also appreciated Hamilton’s sense of loyalty. I wonder if Washington had been alive at the time of the “duel”, if he might not have “interfered” … or perhaps I am romanticizing the relationship a bit too much.
Out of all the founding fathers, I find Hamilton’s presence amongst that body of accidental revolutionaries the most serendipitous.
“What was it about Hamilton that attracted the attention of Washington and kept the General’s affection through so many difficult times? I know Washington appreciated Hamilton’s intellect but I sense an almost father/son attachment in the relationship.”
Divided by temperament and the formality of the day between superior and subordinate, Hamilton and Washington were never close friends, however Hamilton was, in a very real sense, the voice of George Washington on matters of policy. Most historians believe it was Hamilton who wrote key passages of GW’s Farewell Address declining to run for a third term. In that address, Washington warned against foreign entanglements and decried affiliation with political parties — both pet peeves of Hamilton who was more focused on developing a European style economy of industrial might and credit based commerce. Washington’s economic polices were decidedly Hamiltonian. Washington understood the considerable gifts Hamilton brought to his administration in fostering the development of the fledgling economy. GW made no pretense to expertise in economic matters, his gifts residing more in military affairs and governmental organization. Hamilton provided this expertise, and, as the General said to Congress, Hamilton was also a person “who can think for me, as well as execute orders.”
The first thing affected his writing & the second his politics.
I believe, sir, that you just brought insight and clarity to my thinking … thank you. Looking at his life from the point of view you offered removes a great deal of the mystery that often, in my mind, surrounded his actions.
Now, may I ask another questions?
What was it about Hamilton that attracted the attention of Washington and kept the General’s affection through so many difficult times? I know Washington appreciated Hamilton’s intellect but I sense an almost father/son attachment in the relationship.
Some of this is from memory so don’t judge me to harshly. Hamilton was a bastard? I seem to remember that so denied the better education. The death of his mother left him poor through some legal rigmarole (hey! this is off the top of my head to start a conversation!) & often felt inferior to the wealthy educated founders (e.g. Jefferson). As an economist he felt a central control of the money supply etc would provide more clout and be more beneficial to those of lower economic status.
The first thing affected his writing & the second his politics.
The link was fascinating reading.
I would suggest that the subject of this thread would not find herself classified in the higher order if scientists ran the study on her. I’m not certain the chimpanzees would want her anywhere near their family groupings either.
The prosecutors are stuck with her.
I don’t want to hijack the thread but I have a question for you. We’ve discussed Jefferson, Adams, and Washington in earlier postings and I would like your thoughts on Hamilton. He is the one founding father I can’t grasp with any real certainty. I think I have a handle on him and then he slips through my fingers. What are your thoughts on Hamilton?
“The Maternal Instinct, supposedly one of the strongest forces of nature, was too easily destroyed in this woman.”
According to a BBC report, even chimpanzees feel this strong maternal instinct. It is fascinating reading to find that we share more than just 99% of our DNA with the apes:
Which is the beast and which is the higher order?
This woman either needs psychiatric help and/or a long stay in prison. She willfully (if sane) killed her child on the behest of a religous expert! I guess if the Pope and many of his Bishops can get away with the responsibility of raping thousands of children world wide, maybe her sentence isn’t so bad?? Wow!
“Also, there was no malice on 9/11, the hi-jackers were simply brainwashed,..”
Again the punishment does not fit the crime. Since prayer fixes everything simply confine her to a room for 30 days and have her pray to be fed by Gawd. If it was good enough for her kid it should be good enough for her.
The Maternal Instinct, supposedly one of the strongest forces of nature, was too easily destroyed in this woman.
It takes a certain kind of deaf and blind individual to listen and watch a 16 month old child starve to death.
As to the “brain-washing” suggested by her defense attorney … I’m going to suggest that the only real brain washing done here was hers on the prosecution team.
I certainly do not begrudge anyone their religious freedom (hey, if one needs such a crutch in order to get through everyday life, go for it), but in this case, which in my mind amounts to nothing short of murder, the only thing I can manage to say is, “WTF?”
Also, there was no malice on 9/11, the hi-jackers were simply brainwashed,
also Bush was brainwashed to attack Saddam by his dad and Cheney, no malice there…
same with the Germans around ’39 – ’45, no malice there, “Sie hätten dass nicht gewüsst”.
Let her go, I think she’s ready to ‘pop out another unit’ soon, and that one will be just as bad off.
The conclusion concerning the absence of malice is ridiculous. Malice can be inferred from the facts. This mother knew the consequences of her actions could well be the death of the child. The continuation of an action which one knows or should know may result in the death of another is sufficient to create a presumption of malice. Absurd plea agreement. Absurd sentence.
Not grammatical, but stylistic:
Mother SB Monster
“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.’”
Crazy people do crazy things in the name of religion – and their kids suffer. We don’t just punish for malice, by the way, but for outrageous behavior resulting in harm regardless of the claimed motivation.
Comments are closed.