Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Plea bargain of the decade
I have a passing interest in how both civil and criminal law have evolved to deal with people who are apparently not mentally competent, or otherwise lack capacity (I happen to be a fiduciary for a small trust set up for a non-nuclear family member who has long suffered from a significant, but not completely debilitating mental illness.)
That said, I was quite surprised to read the lead graf of this AP article:
BALTIMORE – A former religious cult member who helped starve her son to death believes he will be resurrected, but legal experts say her extreme faith doesn't make her criminally insane. The mother made an extraordinary deal with prosecutors Monday that her guilty plea to child abuse resulting in death will be withdrawn if her 1-year-old son, Javon Thompson, comes back to life. Law experts and psychiatrists said there was no problem with the agreement because Ria Ramkissoon, 22, was mentally competent and freely entered into the deal, and extreme religious beliefs aren't deemed insane by law.Give the prosecutor credit for being creative. The state gets the plea deal and has the mother flip on other cult members.
I always worry about the circularity of logic in situations like this. I mean, this woman is obviously a loon, but the state must pretend that she is not so that she has the capacity to enter into this agreement. But, this agreement on its face is absurd, since one of the conditions relates to the resurrection of a dead infant. That her insanity is given cover by her "religious beliefs" is a pretty lame fig leaf.
5 Comments:
By 
D.E. Cloutier, at
Wed Apr 01, 12:03:00 AM:
What if the chid comes back as a zombie (walking dead)? Does that count?
By Georg Felis, at
Wed Apr 01, 12:12:00 AM:
I'm still having problems with a justice system who will use the testimony of an insane individual to put other (possibly) insane individuals in jail.
By Dawnfire82, at
Wed Apr 01, 07:48:00 AM:
Caveat: DF82 = not medical expert.
Being utterly convinced that something fantastical is true doesn't make you crazy. It makes you wrong.
Real mental illness is rooted in physiological defects that can be tracked and identified.
If stupidity and/or fanaticism were really indicators of insanity, then the case for destroying Iranian nuclear facilities would be a lot stronger, wouldn't it?
By 
, at
Wed Apr 01, 09:53:00 AM:
Actually DF82, there is no physiological test for major mental disorders one way or the other. You might have two brothers with similar physiology but only one might have it. Trauma or environment can trigger it in those predisposed by biology as can drugs. It is a physiological disorder though. Different meds help different people...even with the same illness because their chemistry is different.
Someone can have a delusion only once in their life, take few meds,
and get labled or someone can have many and not be termed insane. And, doctors do not always agree.
It is inexact. But, when it is very serious...you will know it.
By , at
Wed Apr 01, 04:40:00 PM:
She is not insane. Her beliefs might be viewed as "delusional" by some, but there is an ordered logic to her viewpoint. She says she did not intend to harm her son, because he would be resurrected. If (and only if) that miraculous event takes place, her viewpoint will be vindicated. (It ain't bragging, when you can do it!).
On the other side, the prosecutor actually used some logic (and reasonableness). If her position actually came to pass, he would have no legal basis for a conviction. So he loses nothing by agreeing to her offer.
Similarly, she loses nothing (from her point of view) by agreeing to the deal, since in her mind, she will be found not guilty by reason of resurrection.
(Dang!, Never *ever* thought I would write a sentence like *that*.)
