"Ramkissoon's family said she should not be held responsible for her son's death. "She had no control over that situation at all," her stepfather, Craig Newton, said Monday."
Did he really just say that she had no control over whether her son was given food?!
They should lock her up and conveniently forget to ever feed her.
One thing I will agree on is that just the mother shouldn't be charged, they should be charging a lot more.
I... don't really know how I feel about how responsible she was. Quite a bit, yes, but I'm still hazy in my own mind about the whole brainwashing thing. She should definitely be punished, but I think (even with the fact that she was the mother) that the ones leading the cult and calling the shots should be punished even more.
(And yeah, this has been ALL over the local news the past few days, so I've had a while to think about it and go back and forth.)
Also given when they say she met the cult (shortly after childbirth) she could have been experienceing post partum depression. So she was in a very sensitive state. Their friendliness and support were probably very comforting and she probably came to view them like family within thw (just under) 2 years she knew them. So by the time it came to this point, she trusted them when they said she shoudln't feed the child.
Also, we're assuming she accepted the fate without question and without wanting to get him food. We don't know that she wasn't crying the whole time, wanting to feed him, but being peer pressured by the rest to deny him food.
It's easy when you're not in the cult. But cults get people in by appealing to emotion, not reason.
It's easy when you're not in the cult. But cults get people in by appealing to emotion, not reason.
I recall explaining this to a writing friend, as a reason why he couldn't operate on the assumption that cultists were all stupid. On the contrary—but many fall into the trap of thinking that they're too smart to be fooled.
(Also, hi. I've seen you around NFP and similar comms.)
Yeh, there are a lot of people who are quite smart who get pulled into cults or groups like that. One of my ex-bfs, his dad got pulled into a Jehovah's Witness group b/c they happened by while he was mourning the loss of his wife. He tried to get my now-ex to join, but my ex wouldn't have anything to do w/ it. He was of the opinion that all religion is BS anyway.
Cult or not, starving your child is one of those things that should make you liable regardless.
I can feel bad for her and still think she needs to be up on charges for the things she did, because, regardless of her reasoning, she did them, and a child is dead because of her direct voluntary actions.
What if it wasn't voluntary and she was forcibly kept there? I'm just speculating here. Without knowing the full details it's hard to make a judgement. That having been siad, it's more than likely I would absolutely agree that she is responsible for the death of her child, who was completely dependent on her.
Probably. Like I said, chances are I completely agree. I just like to point out that sometimes situations aren't as black and white as an article might make them appear.
It's really hard to tell with the info that's out there... for instance, here is a somewhat older news report when this was still breaking and being investigated, where according to the grandmother the mother and son were both virtual prisoners, and the child was taken away from the mother after falling unconscious, with promises that he'd be taken care of, etc.
Once again I add the disclaimer: not saying she has NO responsibility in this, but just that she isn't the main one, here, and there's more to look at.
brainwashing is no excuse. None at all. If your religion tells you something that is blatantly and obviously wrong, you are responsible for not acting on it. No matter how brainwashed you are, you may still not, for example, sacrifice people to Thor. Not legally, anyway.
Mens rea. There's a reason we have manslaughter and murder as different crimes with different penalties. US law usually goes by a mixture of the subjective and objective tests of mens rea, which is why, say, Patty Hearst isn't still in jail.
Fair. I suppose I should say that brainwashing doesn't remove your culpability. it may mean that you aren't guilty of the same crime, but when you get down to it, it's still unacceptable behavior. She may have thought she meant well, but I'm not sure that blatant stupidity is an excuse.
Well, that's just it, if you're brainwashed, you might not be fully responsible. The trick of course is that someone might be actually brainwashed, or might be trying to use that as an excuse...
Anyhow, like I mentioned, I'm not saying she shouldn't be punished/isn't responsible at all. But the cult leaders and others more responsible for calling the shots (and bringing people in and brainwashing them in the first place) should be the ones really gone after with an unholy vengeance.
(And on a side note, I'm not sure which news story the local news is trying to flog to death more... this one, or the one about the tractor trailer taking a nosedive off the Bay Bridge...
Actually, brainwashing means that you aren't fully responsible for your actions.
Though this really doesn't apply here, at what point is something blatantly and obviously wrong? Is refusing to vaccinate your children wrong? Refusing to give them a blood transfusion? Refusing to educate them past a certain stage?
No matter what stupid crap I tell you as a religious nut job, letting your baby starve is not okay. And letting it happen is pathetic, no matter how much brainwashing is involved. It doesn't take a genius to figure out how to care for babies. it's been done for millions of years. Maybe she was confused or being lied to, but it doesn't make it okay that she just gave in to it.
I believe in maternal bonding, but maternal "instinct" is largely a social construction and if you think at childrearing through history (for example, infanticide) that becomes plain.
possibly a lot of it is, but logic tells me that feeding, burping, cleaning and what not ARE maternal instincts, otherwise they would never have happened before general education and civilised culture. It's not like prehistoric woman was taught how to breast feed.
However, the idea of the maternal instinct to keep children safe beyond that may very well be a construction.
Parenting is not instinctual. It's a learned behavior. It's a reasonably universal behavior, but you still have to learn how to do it (which is why parenting styles differ cross-culturally).
For your information, some women do have to be taught to breastfeed or burp or clean their babies.
Before resorting to a logic that has no basis in either your lived experience (since you're male) or in the literature, it might be good to examine your biases.
If you say so. I'm not sure that learned behaviour IS the "logical" assumption there, all things considered. I'll wait for useful facts, rather than your say so. I'd say that anything that has been happening longer than we have been a species gets the benefit of the doubt over you shaking your head.
You know, I don't think there is a single one of these "religious crazy" tragedies that cannot be summed up by assuming every single one of the players suffer, not from religious dementia, but from a truly monumental lack of gumption.
'Cause, you know, my grandmother is devoutly religious. But if her priest came to her and said "You must starve your child", she would be the first to smack him silly, because being religious does not mean you are allowed to take leave of your fucking senses, people.
I'd be inclined to say that everyone in organized religion suffers from a monumental lack of gumption ("You say that if I talk to my special imaginary friend everyday, imagine that I'm eating his body, and that I'm drinking his blood, I'll go to that special zombie paradise in the sky?". It's just what your particular religion orders you to do that's different.
You know, I honestly don't know if I can give an unbiased opinion on this. The fact that any mother could let another decide that she's not allowed to feed her son to the point of death makes me so blindly angry that anything said on my part would be incredibly violent.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-12 07:51 pm (UTC)Did he really just say that she had no control over whether her son was given food?!
They should lock her up and conveniently forget to ever feed her.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-12 07:55 pm (UTC)This is part of the problem crazy cultists pose.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-12 08:09 pm (UTC)I... don't really know how I feel about how responsible she was. Quite a bit, yes, but I'm still hazy in my own mind about the whole brainwashing thing. She should definitely be punished, but I think (even with the fact that she was the mother) that the ones leading the cult and calling the shots should be punished even more.
(And yeah, this has been ALL over the local news the past few days, so I've had a while to think about it and go back and forth.)
(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-12 08:24 pm (UTC)Also, we're assuming she accepted the fate without question and without wanting to get him food. We don't know that she wasn't crying the whole time, wanting to feed him, but being peer pressured by the rest to deny him food.
It's easy when you're not in the cult. But cults get people in by appealing to emotion, not reason.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-12 08:30 pm (UTC)I recall explaining this to a writing friend, as a reason why he couldn't operate on the assumption that cultists were all stupid. On the contrary—but many fall into the trap of thinking that they're too smart to be fooled.
(Also, hi. I've seen you around NFP and similar comms.)
(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-12 08:36 pm (UTC)Yeh, there are a lot of people who are quite smart who get pulled into cults or groups like that. One of my ex-bfs, his dad got pulled into a Jehovah's Witness group b/c they happened by while he was mourning the loss of his wife. He tried to get my now-ex to join, but my ex wouldn't have anything to do w/ it. He was of the opinion that all religion is BS anyway.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-12 10:52 pm (UTC)It's why I have a massive hate-on for most religion now.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-12 08:36 pm (UTC)I can feel bad for her and still think she needs to be up on charges for the things she did, because, regardless of her reasoning, she did them, and a child is dead because of her direct voluntary actions.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-12 08:41 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-12 08:53 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-12 08:53 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-12 08:55 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-12 08:57 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-12 09:47 pm (UTC)Once again I add the disclaimer: not saying she has NO responsibility in this, but just that she isn't the main one, here, and there's more to look at.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-12 08:35 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-12 08:50 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-13 12:07 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-12 09:12 pm (UTC)Anyhow, like I mentioned, I'm not saying she shouldn't be punished/isn't responsible at all. But the cult leaders and others more responsible for calling the shots (and bringing people in and brainwashing them in the first place) should be the ones really gone after with an unholy vengeance.
(And on a side note, I'm not sure which news story the local news is trying to flog to death more... this one, or the one about the tractor trailer taking a nosedive off the Bay Bridge...
(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-12 10:55 pm (UTC)Though this really doesn't apply here, at what point is something blatantly and obviously wrong? Is refusing to vaccinate your children wrong? Refusing to give them a blood transfusion? Refusing to educate them past a certain stage?
(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-13 12:09 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-13 03:17 pm (UTC)I'm just saying that brainwashing makes people do things that folks on the outside would never consider sane or logical or normal.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-14 12:09 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-14 02:44 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-14 07:44 pm (UTC)However, the idea of the maternal instinct to keep children safe beyond that may very well be a construction.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-14 08:29 pm (UTC)Parenting is not instinctual. It's a learned behavior. It's a reasonably universal behavior, but you still have to learn how to do it (which is why parenting styles differ cross-culturally).
For your information, some women do have to be taught to breastfeed or burp or clean their babies.
Before resorting to a logic that has no basis in either your lived experience (since you're male) or in the literature, it might be good to examine your biases.
Anyway, this is really off topic now.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-15 11:23 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-12 09:14 pm (UTC)'Cause, you know, my grandmother is devoutly religious. But if her priest came to her and said "You must starve your child", she would be the first to smack him silly, because being religious does not mean you are allowed to take leave of your fucking senses, people.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-12 10:57 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-13 01:36 pm (UTC)And everyone is gumption-free in at least one aspect of their lives; it's just the degree to which here that's the staggering thing.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-12 11:11 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-12 11:30 pm (UTC)I do ascribe more blame to the cult than the mother, but it's hard to be coherent in the face of such sadness
(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-13 05:51 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-13 03:37 pm (UTC)I'm dealing with this later.