The Anti-Targ Posted June 18, 2017 Share Posted June 18, 2017 From a CNN News feed: Quote A Massachusetts judge found Michelle Carter, 20, guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the 2014 death of her boyfriend, who poisoned himself by inhaling carbon monoxide in his pickup truck. Prosecutors had said she sent Conrad Roy III, 18, numerous text messages urging him to commit suicide. The ruling could set legal precedent for whether it's a crime to tell someone to commit suicide. It may also spur lawmakers to codify such behavior as criminal. I don't know the details of the case but it is the first time I've heard that someone has been found guilty of murder for encouraging someone to kill themselves without taking any other direct action to assist in the act itself. It seems problematic to make this a crime, since the influence someone has over a person's decision depends a great deal on their relationship. Various toxic conversations between strangers online often end up with someone telling another person to kill themselves. If the law is badly worded then that would be a crime. There would need to be a very high threshold of guilt for any such law to work. I'm not immediately against it per se, since people's words can have a huge influence on the psychology and emotion of others. But I think it's problematic to write a good law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted June 18, 2017 Share Posted June 18, 2017 Just now, The Anti-Targ said: From a CNN News feed: I don't know the details of the case but it is the first time I've heard that someone has been found guilty of murder for encouraging someone to kill themselves without taking any other direct action to assist in the act itself. She wasn't found guilty of murder, which requires intent to kill and more direct action. Just now, The Anti-Targ said: It seems problematic to make this a crime, since the influence someone has over a person's decision depends a great deal on their relationship. Various toxic conversations between strangers online often end up with someone telling another person to kill themselves. If the law is badly worded then that would be a crime. There would need to be a very high threshold of guilt for any such law to work. I'm not immediately against it per se, since people's words can have a huge influence on the psychology and emotion of others. But I think it's problematic to write a good law. Okay, let's head this off right now. She was convicted of involuntary manslaughter for all of the below: She sent numerous messages to her boyfriend to tell him to kill himself over several days. She was on the phone with him listening to him kill himself She did not call the police She did not call the family She did not say 'get out of the car' as he poisoned himself with carbon monoxide. She proceeded to use the suicide to get a ton of sympathy and attention Manslaughter itself isn't a great crime for this, as the article mentions, but it was not simply a random person saying 'go kill yourself'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted June 18, 2017 Author Share Posted June 18, 2017 17 minutes ago, Kalbear said: She wasn't found guilty of murder, which requires intent to kill and more direct action. Okay, let's head this off right now. She was convicted of involuntary manslaughter for all of the below: She sent numerous messages to her boyfriend to tell him to kill himself over several days. She was on the phone with him listening to him kill himself She did not call the police She did not call the family She did not say 'get out of the car' as he poisoned himself with carbon monoxide. She proceeded to use the suicide to get a ton of sympathy and attention Manslaughter itself isn't a great crime for this, as the article mentions, but it was not simply a random person saying 'go kill yourself'. Sure, but will a law limit itself to such circumstances? Will it upgrade the charge that can be laid to a higher degree of homicide? One can't conclude that the conviction that lead to the passing of a law will determine the scope of the law. This case is merely a catalyst. The substantive issue is what any law might look like, how it would work in practice, and whether such a law should exist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted June 18, 2017 Share Posted June 18, 2017 Just now, The Anti-Targ said: Sure, but will a law limit itself to such circumstances? Will it upgrade the charge that can be laid to a higher degree of homicide? One can't conclude that the conviction that lead to the passing of a law will determine the scope of the law. This case is merely a catalyst. The substantive issue is what any law might look like, how it would work in practice, and whether such a law should exist? The prosecution worked heavily not on the 'texting to kill' part but on the 'getting someone to knowingly try to kill themselves and then do nothing about it when you had the knowledge and ability to do so. I suspect that they'll likely go after something like negligent homicide laws to fix that part. The texting part was really not that special in either the prosecution's case or the Judge's decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MerenthaClone Posted June 18, 2017 Share Posted June 18, 2017 There's no obligation for laypersons to assist in basically any state that I know of, and very few states mandate reporting for off-duty trained personnel either. The fact that she did not call anybody should have no bearing on her crime. Maybe I'm wrong about Massachusetts, but it seems kinda shitty to be including shitty but legal behavior in a list of reasons she was convicted of a crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted June 18, 2017 Share Posted June 18, 2017 Just now, MerenthaClone said: There's no obligation for laypersons to assist in basically any state that I know of, and very few states mandate reporting for off-duty trained personnel either. The fact that she did not call anybody should have no bearing on her crime. Maybe I'm wrong about Massachusetts, but it seems kinda shitty to be including shitty but legal behavior in a list of reasons she was convicted of a crime. I think that's what the law is going to be changing. And she didn't just not call anyone - she stayed on the phone, knowingly listening to him die, and did nothing. And this was after encouraging him to kill himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felice Posted June 18, 2017 Share Posted June 18, 2017 3 minutes ago, MerenthaClone said: The fact that she did not call anybody should have no bearing on her crime. Maybe I'm wrong about Massachusetts, but it seems kinda shitty to be including shitty but legal behavior in a list of reasons she was convicted of a crime. It's relevant in that it's evidence that she really meant it when she told him to kill himself. She's not exactly an uninvolved bystander here. 43 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said: Various toxic conversations between strangers online often end up with someone telling another person to kill themselves. I don't think discouraging such behaviour online would be a bad thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Marquis de Leech Posted June 18, 2017 Share Posted June 18, 2017 1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said: From a CNN News feed: I don't know the details of the case but it is the first time I've heard that someone has been found guilty of murder for encouraging someone to kill themselves without taking any other direct action to assist in the act itself. It seems problematic to make this a crime, since the influence someone has over a person's decision depends a great deal on their relationship. It's a crime here (separate from murder): http://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM329347.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted June 18, 2017 Share Posted June 18, 2017 How does this play with people who want to make the choice to commit suicide a right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HexMachina Posted June 18, 2017 Share Posted June 18, 2017 1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: How does this play with people who want to make the choice to commit suicide a right? Irrelevant. It's not voluntary euthanasia if you have been coerced (which is a distinction I believe Stubby made at length in the other thread). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocksniffer Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 18 hours ago, Kalbear said: I think that's what the law is going to be changing. And she didn't just not call anyone - she stayed on the phone, knowingly listening to him die, and did nothing. And this was after encouraging him to kill himself. ...and i heard on the news that she even told him to get back into truck when he got out during the incident...that seems even more damning, to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cas Stark Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 6 minutes ago, rocksniffer said: ...and i heard on the news that she even told him to get back into truck when he got out during the incident...that seems even more damning, to me That's the only thing I can possibly hang her conviction on that doesn't seem to jump a huge gulf in terms of culpability. Telling him to kill himself, I don't see that as criminal, but then I don't believe in hate speech. Telling him to get back IN the car is getting a lot closer, but it's still a really dodgy situation, and as far as I know there is no bystander responsibility to intervene in such cases, there may be a moral responsibility, but I think not a legal one. She seems like a fairly unhinged, bad person. But, that doesn't make her responsible for someone else's suicide. I certainly she hope she isn't given any jail time in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocksniffer Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 while i know many do not consider wikipedia to be a great source this simple search turned up these words about duty to rescue...in US Quote A duty to rescue arises where a person creates a hazardous situation. If another person then falls into peril because of this hazardous situation, the creator of the hazard – who may not necessarily have been a negligent tortfeasor – has a duty to rescue the individual in peril.[4] In the United States, as of 2009 ten states had laws on the books requiring that people at least notify law enforcement of and/or seek aid for strangers in peril under certain conditions: California,[10][11]Florida,[10][12][13]Hawaii,[10][14]Massachusetts,[10][15]Minnesota,[10][16]Ohio,[10][17]Rhode Island,[10][18]Vermont,[10][19]Washington,[10][20][21] and Wisconsin.[10][22] These laws are also referred to as Good Samaritan laws, despite their difference from laws of the same name that protect individuals who try to help another person.[1] These laws are rarely applied, and are generally ignored by citizens and lawmakers.[1] i would submit that she did at least help create the haszardous condition by telling him what and how to do it...and Massachusettes is one of the states with such crimial laws, and common laws...and since i think committing suicide is technically a crime she had a duty to report, in my totally non-legally trained opinion it is hard for me to say she is innocent but also i find it hard to criminalize her actions since she did not hold a gun or some other threat of violence to force him to comply...real fucked up situation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dejection Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 Freedom of speech is an impossible concept because it implies something unlimited and without any real extent. There will always be values in society, established over long periods of time and which are even dear to the populace that contradict the notion of freedom of speech. Does freedom of speech not mean saying anything you want, about anything, anywhere? Don't tell me that discretion or even concepts like manners, sensitivity and respect do not ultimately curtail 'freedom of speech'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zelticgar Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 19 hours ago, Kalbear said: She wasn't found guilty of murder, which requires intent to kill and more direct action. Okay, let's head this off right now. She was convicted of involuntary manslaughter for all of the below: She sent numerous messages to her boyfriend to tell him to kill himself over several days. She was on the phone with him listening to him kill himself She did not call the police She did not call the family She did not say 'get out of the car' as he poisoned himself with carbon monoxide. She proceeded to use the suicide to get a ton of sympathy and attention Manslaughter itself isn't a great crime for this, as the article mentions, but it was not simply a random person saying 'go kill yourself'. I would add to this list "Spent significant time and effort covering and lying about her true actions to the victim's family and law enforcement after the death". I know nothing about the legal nuances of a case like this but the text messages between her and the boyfriend are tough to read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 5 minutes ago, Dejection said: Freedom of speech is an impossible concept because it implies something unlimited and without any real extent. There will always be values in society, established over long periods of time and which are even dear to the populace that contradict the notion of freedom of speech. Does freedom of speech not mean saying anything you want, about anything, anywhere? Don't tell me that discretion or even concepts like manners, sensitivity and respect do not ultimately curtail 'freedom of speech'. Freedom of speech as defined by the US is simply that the government will not prosecute you for anything that you say for its specific content. That is all. It does not mean you can say anything without consequences. It does not mean your speech cannot be used as evidence for other crimes It does not mean you are free from legal consequences outside of the speech; disruption of legal events, lying, etc. It's really not that hard a concept, and it's also not really that unrestricted. It is simply a contract between what you can say legally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dejection Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 2 hours ago, Kalbear said: Freedom of speech as defined by the US is simply that the government will not prosecute you for anything that you say for its specific content. That is all. It does not mean you can say anything without consequences. It does not mean your speech cannot be used as evidence for other crimes It does not mean you are free from legal consequences outside of the speech; disruption of legal events, lying, etc. It's really not that hard a concept, and it's also not really that unrestricted. It is simply a contract between what you can say legally. I criticize the notion of pushing freedom of speech in society and legislation from the perspective of how easily it can be screwed with. Just any curtailing of any kind of human speech (which is what happens in your bullet points) will give a myriad of people with differing viewpoints on how far freedom of speech to go reason enough to oppose such laws. This is something people will be extremely vocal about. What becomes reasonable curtailing of freedom of speech for one is an utterly awful violation of a basic freedom (not just a basic freedom but some odd golden kind of promise given to them by the government; 'hey the government just said there's going to be freedom of speech, I can say anything I want' to 'what the hell they're breaking their promise!') for another. Societal, political turmoil to follow and all for what? A shiny, impossible concept like freedom of speech? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 Something being hard to do is not a good reason for not doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polishgenius Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 Freedom of speech is obviously a broad concept which varies from country to country/society/person, but for me it's surely got to be about the freedom to express opinion. Surely it cannot cover threat, bullying, coersion, or other attempts at personal manipulation? You take it to too much of an extreme and suddenly there's no legal way to stop harrassment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Egalitarianism Always Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 On 19/06/2017 at 0:48 AM, HelenaExMachina said: Irrelevant. It's not voluntary euthanasia if you have been coerced (which is a distinction I believe Stubby made at length in the other thread). Merriam-Webster trolled of United Airlines use of the word 'volunteer'. Personally I am for assisted suicide which has the backing of at least 3 consultant doctors reviewing the situation at a worldwide reputable hospital. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.