In what has to be a first, a Maryland court has accepted a plea bargain where she will testify against her fellow cult members and plead guilty -- unless her son is resurrected.
22-year-old Ria Ramkissoon is accused of refusing to feed her son Javon because "he didn't say 'amen' before breakfast." Ramkissoon and other parents were allegedly ordered to do this by a woman named Queen Antoinette, the leader of a group called One Mind Ministries. Queen Antoinette is charged with murder and child abuse resulting in death; in exchange for her testimony, Ramkissoon will plead guilty only to the latter charge.
Prosecutors do what they have to do to get convictions, so I guess the deal makes sense. In fact, they included very specific stipulations, claiming that the rebirth "would need to be a Jesus-like resurrection…It cannot be a reincarnation in another object or animal." So if Ramkissoon brings in a cabbage and says, "this is my son," no dice.
The only question I have is this: if Ramkissoon said that she believed her son had only traveled to Mars and would return in a year, would the same deal have been offered? Would that belief be any less sane? Is it possible that prosecutors are taking advantage of a mentally damaged individual? Or is this reasonable because the resurrection deal (which hopefully won't become commonplace in our courts) falls under the category of religious beliefs?
That's a tough question to answer, of course. For now, hopefully the people responsible for this horrific crime will be brought to justice.
Source/Image: Washington Post
Read more:
