why would a prosecutor agree to this?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

i ask a legitimate question here. was it a matter of expedience? doesn't it set a wacky precedent and maybe even a dangerous one?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/03/31/cult.child.death/index.html

A child dies in starvation and the prosecutor accepts a plea deal with a 'resurrection clause.'

sP

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. Because he figures there's a poor likelihood of resurrection?

Plus, if the child does undergo resurrection, why bother prosecuting?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

4. i see that part...

but my fear is that nutjobs make hay out of this...somehow. to me this looks like a legitimate insanity defense waiting to happen.

and hey, if the kid comes back, then things get REALLY interesting :-)

sP

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. A legitimate insanity defense?

Uh, this is a guilty plea.

Not an insanity defense.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

7. but to claim that you allowed someone to die

with the belief that they would be resurrected is obvious insanity...wouldn't you say? even if it is religious insanity. i know it is not in this deal and i agree with getting the deal on many levels. i would just think with the strength of the case that they would not want to allow this sort of 'clause.'

sP

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. It's not legal insanity.

She's not using an insanity defense, all parties agree she knew what she was doing was wrong, and the guilty plea is an admission of that.

This has nothing to do with an insanity defense.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

9. i agree it is not part of this deal

it just seems like the state is allowing nuttery as part of a plea deal is a bad idea. i think you and i are just talking past each other. to me it just doesn't make sense.

sP

[MadMaddie]

2. She only got 20 years

I thought it would have been more. Perhaps the prosecutor just wanted to close the case. Of course by agreeing to it the prosecutor is validating her crazy beliefs.

[tekisui]

3. To get the deal?

The kid's dead. Not coming back dead. The mother is testifying against the others. It's a win for the prosecutor.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

5. just seems like a pandora's box to me

including obvious delusions as part of a plea deal...i am all for saving the cost of a trial and getting testimony against the others...but this seems off somehow...

sP

[Canuckistanian]

10. An interesting post from Pharyngula on this

The child's mother, Ria Ramkissoon, and others are on trial for murder, reasonably enough. Here's the kicker, though:

Psychiatrists who evaluated Ramkissoon at the request of a judge concluded that she was not criminally insane. Her attorney, Steven Silverman, said the doctors found that her beliefs were indistinguishable from religious beliefs, in part because they were shared by those around her.

"She wasn't delusional, because she was following a religion," Silverman said, describing the findings of the doctors' psychiatric evaluation.

Well. Why should the religion label excuse delusional beliefs?

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/privileging_belief.php