{"id":14391,"date":"2009-04-01T06:40:26","date_gmt":"2009-04-01T12:40:26","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/?p=14391"},"modified":"2009-04-01T06:40:35","modified_gmt":"2009-04-01T12:40:35","slug":"is-religion-an-excuse-for-criminal-behavior","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2009\/04\/01\/is-religion-an-excuse-for-criminal-behavior.html","title":{"rendered":"Is religion an excuse for criminal behavior?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Hemant Mehta asks a simple question: Why is Religion an Excuse for Criminal Behavior?<\/a> <\/p>\n

The answer, of course, is that it’s not. Except when it is.<\/p>\n

The question arises in the context of this story<\/a>, which is getting a lot of publicity. It’s a too-familiar tale of a religious cult in Baltimore:<\/p>\n

\n

But inside, prosecutors say, horrors were unfolding: Answering to a leader called Queen Antoinette, they denied a 16-month-old boy food and water because he did not say “Amen” at mealtimes. After he died, they prayed over his body for days, expecting a resurrection, then packed it into a suitcase with mothballs. They left it in a shed in Philadelphia, where it remained for a year before detectives found it last spring.<\/p>\n

Tomorrow, five of the group’s alleged members — including the boy’s mother, Ria Ramkissoon — are scheduled to be tried in Baltimore on murder charges. Sources and Ramkissoon’s mother said Ramkissoon, 22, has agreed to plead guilty to a lesser charge on one condition: The charges against her must be dropped if her son, Javon Thompson, is resurrected.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The controversy arises in the murky mix of figuring out Ramkissoon’s state of mind.<\/p>\n

\n

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.<\/p>\n

“She wasn’t delusional, because she was following a religion,” Silverman said, describing the findings of the doctors’ psychiatric evaluation.<\/p>\n

[…] Silverman said he and prosecutors think Ramkissoon was brainwashed and should have been found not criminally responsible; prosecutors declined to comment. Although an inability to think critically can be a sign of brainwashing, experts said, the line between that and some religious beliefs can be difficult to discern.<\/p>\n

“At times there can be an overlap between extreme religious conviction and delusion,” said Robert Jay Lifton, a cult expert and psychiatrist who lectures at Harvard Medical School. “It’s a difficult area for psychiatry and the legal system.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Which then engenders a whole discussion of whether all religious belief is delusional (believing in things unseen and magical, holding conversations with invisible all-powerful creatures that are said to control our lives, etc.), the definition of delusion<\/a> in the DSM-IV (which then rules out, by definition, religion), and the analogy between the above tragedy and some events in the Bible (e.g., the Sacrifice of Abraham<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The initial question, though, is if the line between “extreme religious conviction,” especially in a cult setting such as this, and brainwashed delusion and inability to critically think, is that thin, then if we allow brainwashing and other “diminished mental capacities” to lessen charges, does “extreme religious conviction” allow something similar?<\/p>\n

Historically, in most cases, it’s been a mixed bag. The closest analog here is people whose faith leads them to reject certain medical practices. We tend to let such folks make such decisions for themselves. Fundamentally, it’s not very different of a case than folks making decision about end-of-life care or leaving orders about what sort of life-extending technology should be used on them. The courts have been much more mixed when those decisions have been imposed on others (e.g., children) by believing parents.<\/p>\n

Does the popularity and wide spread of a moral value or religious belief make a difference here? On one level, I don’t think it should — my personal religious belief should be treated no more lightly if I hold it alone, vs. if I hold it with my family, a “cult” of 20, or a national denomination of a million. <\/p>\n

The problem is, that idea doesn’t scale well. At one point, all values and morality become subjective decisions, held by the group. Is a belief in personal “freedom” and the value of “life” (though within certain bounds and conventions) irrational? Unless argued from purely pragmatic and selfish reasons (e.g., “I value freedom of expression solely because I enjoy it and I can best guarantee it for myself is to ensure that others have it”), it all becomes a consensus of personal values. It makes no difference whether those values are theistic or not, they still boil down to some fundamental axioms and assertions that can no more be proven than inscriptions on stone tablets. Arguably, Ramkissoon is no more delusional than the body politic of the United States or the EU. It’s just that we outnumber her (hence calling hers “extreme <\/em>religious beliefs” vs. everyday ones), and the rules we have set for society from our shared values (“Thou shalt not let your kid starve to death unless you, as well, are too weak from hunger to prevent it”) prevail.<\/p>\n

This is the point, though, where discussions of public morality most often break down. A mother letting her child be starved to death is generally considered unacceptable behavior. Saving the life of the mother vs. an unborn child, during a medical emergency, though, is usually accepted. We can argue the differences between the two cases, but ultimately it comes down to values, explicitly religious or not.<\/p>\n

Which then segues neatly over to the public debate over abortion, and its values-laden arguments and counter-arguments. Ultimately, though, it is no more objectively provable that freely available-abortion is “better” than making abortion a criminal offense (or vice-versa). It all depends on how you define “better” and based on what axioms. I protest mightily against fundamentalists trying to impose their beliefs on my life and the lives of my family and friends — but arguing that imposition is wrong gets me back to fuzzy fundamentals myself — personal liberty, ideas of the proper role of religion vs. the secular world, etc. I believe I’m right, and can argue why, but those beliefs are ultimately no more provable, absent nightly Fiery Letters in the Sky, than those of Wildmon or Falwell or Phelps.<\/p>\n

So is religion an excuse for criminal behavior? No, not usually. But it’s also important to remember what we deem “criminal” behavior is itself a societal consensus of values (“Doing X is wrong”) and pragmatism (“Lock ’em up so they don’t hurt anyone else, including me”). Letting your baby die because of your religious beliefs is and should be (IMO) criminal. But criminal codes have also been used to persecute and imprison much more innocuous beliefs, explicitly religious or implicit moral determinations (e.g., the Falun Gong in China; homosexual behavior in the US). The criminal code of the country is no more an objective measure of objective morality — what is “right” — than the Levitican code. <\/p>\n

I might also point out that there are times and places when we do <\/em>explicitly let religious beliefs excuse something that otherwise would be criminal — the status of Conscientious Objectors comes to mind, as do religious-based Sanctuary movements. Indeed, that’s a place where we start seeing religion and religious beliefs in the context by which I think the Founders sought to protect them — as a variety (and wellspring) of personal beliefs that our liberty\/freedom-driven societal value set seeks to recognize and protect from the will and judgment of the majority. We admire someone who takes a strong, principled stand (that we <\/em>believe in) against the legal system, and even argue for leniency (or changing the law) on that basis; whether that stand comes from a moral belief based on the teachings of a religious denomination or from personal philosophy derived from reading books and visiting Internet chat rooms makes less difference than that it is a moral stand (that we agree with). <\/p>\n

To take another case, we root for Jean Valjean vs. the heartless Javert, even though Valjean admits committing a criminal act based on personal moral values — breaking-and-entering to steal food to feed his family. Further, he breaks his parole, and again the audience roots for him, because we consider his punishment unjust. So, yes, in that case, we think that his personal moral code (to the extent it mirrors our personal moral judgment) excuses him for his criminal activity. We laugh and cheer, too, when the nuns sabotage the police vehicles so that the Van Trapp Family can escape over the mountains into Switzerland — even though, of course, both the nuns and the Van Trapps are engaged in criminal behavior, even if it’s behavior based on their own moral code, religiously-derived or not.<\/p>\n

And that, in turn, brings the debate around to where we don’t have societal consensus on what’s right or wrong. Much brouhaha ensued over the past few days about laws passed in Afghanistan<\/a> reinforcing aspects of sharia<\/em> law there, including removing a woman’s right not to consent to sex in the context of marriage. Similar brouhaha on reports of gays being executed in Iraq<\/a>. I consider that repugnant on a variety of levels — but ultimately it comes down to a shouting match about whose moral values are better and more “right” (and “these activities are\/aren’t now part of our criminal code, so who says your <\/em>moral\/religious beliefs should be allowed to trump that?” sorts of counter-arguments) which then has to shift to “Okay, so what do\/can we do about it?” <\/p>\n

I’m not sure where to go with the argument beyond there. For all the philosophizing, Kim Ramkissoon is not Jean Valjean, and I still find her actions abhorrent (Abraham’s, too, but that’s another story). Nor do I think that her being under orders from a religious authority, and believing that she had to obey those orders, gives her a bye in facing criminal charges for it (though I suspect she faces personal, temporal punishment for it, daily, far beyond what any prison could do). My only thought is that this is a fairly bright line case where most people (in our society, at least) agree that her actions were wrong<\/em>, and the only question is whether her capacity to make decisions was impaired, and, if so, to what extent does that mitigate or change her punishment.  The broader question of when we can or should let personal religious beliefs “excuse” criminal behavior is a far stickier one, especially as what is “criminal” varies (for better and worse) in different times and places.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Hemant Mehta asks a simple question: Why is Religion an Excuse for Criminal Behavior?  The answer, of course, is that it’s not. Except when it is. The question arises in the context of this story, which is getting a lot of publicity. It’s a too-familiar tale of a religious cult in Baltimore: But inside, prosecutors say, … Continue reading “Is religion an excuse for criminal behavior?”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","_seopress_robots_follow":"","_seopress_robots_imageindex":"","_seopress_robots_snippet":"","_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","_seopress_robots_breadcrumbs":"","_seopress_robots_freeze_modified_date":"","_seopress_robots_custom_modified_date":"","_seopress_robots_canonical":"","_seopress_social_fb_title":"","_seopress_social_fb_desc":"","_seopress_social_fb_img":"","_seopress_social_fb_img_attachment_id":0,"_seopress_social_fb_img_width":0,"_seopress_social_fb_img_height":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_title":"","_seopress_social_twitter_desc":"","_seopress_social_twitter_img":"","_seopress_social_twitter_img_attachment_id":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_img_width":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_img_height":0,"_seopress_redirections_value":"","_seopress_redirections_enabled":"","_seopress_redirections_enabled_regex":"","_seopress_redirections_logged_status":"","_seopress_redirections_param":"","_seopress_redirections_type":0,"_seopress_analysis_target_kw":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[10,9,27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14391","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-geopolitical-brouhaha","category-politics-law","category-religion"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":22899,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2011\/09\/30\/its-blasphemy-rights-day-dammit.html","url_meta":{"origin":14391,"position":0},"title":"It’s Blasphemy Rights Day, Dammit!","author":"***Dave","date":"Fri 30-Sep-11 10:08am","format":false,"excerpt":"Blasphemy can be a lot of things -- or, rather, a lot of things can be considered blasphemous. Questioning whether a religion is true (esp. if it's the majority religion), criticizing a religion's beliefs or doctrines or rules of behavior, mocking a religion or deity or the holy people of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Religion"","block_context":{"text":"Religion","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/religion"},"img":{"alt_text":"Jesus says, \"Don't be a dick!\"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/08\/jesus-says-300x179.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":14553,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2009\/04\/15\/because-youre-guilty-until-you-convince-us-youre-innocent.html","url_meta":{"origin":14391,"position":1},"title":"“Because you’re guilty until you convince us you’re innocent”","author":"***Dave","date":"Wed 15-Apr-09 9:07pm","format":false,"excerpt":"The TSA's official blog tries to address questions over a recent incident at St Louis International where discovery that a passenger was flying with $4710 in cash triggered some unpleasantness. In the original entry, Bob the TSA Blogger noted: Movements of large amounts of cash through the checkpoint may be\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Home Improvement"","block_context":{"text":"Home Improvement","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/home-improvement"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/images\/tsa-plastic-bag.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":31550,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2012\/11\/30\/remember-when-religion-was-an-obligation-not-an-excuse.html","url_meta":{"origin":14391,"position":2},"title":"Remember when religion was an obligation, not an excuse?","author":"***Dave","date":"Fri 30-Nov-12 6:05pm","format":false,"excerpt":"It seems instead, these days, that religious or moral beliefs are a way to avoid doing things -- like provide contraceptive care, or, in this Michigan state bill, pretty much provide any service, medication, or care to whomever one wants, as long as you're willing to assert a \"moral conviction\"\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "~PlusPosts"","block_context":{"text":"~PlusPosts","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/blogging\/plusposts"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":7539,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2005\/02\/08\/evil.html","url_meta":{"origin":14391,"position":3},"title":"Evil","author":"***Dave","date":"Tue 8-Feb-05 2:48pm","format":false,"excerpt":"An interesting article on some of the debates within psychology, forensics, and criminal law over the value of the term \"evil\" -- can it be used, should it be used,...","rel":"","context":"In "Politics & Law"","block_context":{"text":"Politics & Law","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/politics-law"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":31363,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2012\/11\/14\/when-religion-kills.html","url_meta":{"origin":14391,"position":4},"title":"When Religion Kills","author":"***Dave","date":"Wed 14-Nov-12 2:27pm","format":false,"excerpt":"A woman in Ireland died when an impending miscarriage is not terminated because there's still a heartbeat and \"this is a Catholic country\" ... and, after three days of increasing agony, and after the fetal heartbeat finally stops, the mother is already suffering from septicemia and dies shortly thereafter.For all\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "~PlusPosts"","block_context":{"text":"~PlusPosts","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/blogging\/plusposts"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":132931,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2017\/02\/24\/your-papers-please.html","url_meta":{"origin":14391,"position":5},"title":"Your papers, please","author":"***Dave","date":"Fri 24-Feb-17 8:25pm","format":false,"excerpt":"So the bottom line of this story seems to be:1. Asking people what their religion is, and then asking probing questions about it, is federally sanctioned behavior.2. Pulling someone aside because their name leads you to think they are a member of a particular religion is federally sanctioned behavior.3. Being\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "~PlusPosts"","block_context":{"text":"~PlusPosts","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/blogging\/plusposts"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14391","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14391"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14391\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14391"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14391"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14391"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}