Thoughts on Suicide Text Case

Thoughts on Suicide Text Case

Postby Desert Fox » Fri Jun 16, 2017 4:20 pm

Michelle Carter was found guilty of Involuntary Manslaughter in the death of her boyfriend through a series of text messages.
It sounds like he was suicidal and she either urged or supported him in his suicide

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/16/us/michel ... index.html

Just kind of curious what thoughts are on the case?
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2280
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Thoughts on Suicide Text Case

Postby Samson » Sat Jun 17, 2017 12:17 am

Desert Fox wrote:Michelle Carter was found guilty of Involuntary Manslaughter in the death of her boyfriend through a series of text messages.
It sounds like he was suicidal and she either urged or supported him in his suicide

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/16/us/michel ... index.html

Just kind of curious what thoughts are on the case?

I am curious too.
I am trying to imagine a custodial sentence in the New Zealand context. Will jail make the community safer? It is a singular case which will be unlikely to occur again surely. An interesting aspect is the devil's pledge to her friends, saying he was missing two days before the suicide. Was there a macabre face saving component in play?
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1976
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Thoughts on Suicide Text Case

Postby Annella » Sat Jun 17, 2017 12:43 am

I have been following this case and am delighted she will serve time. Have you all read ALL the texts she sent to him? Disgusting, and her age counts for nothing IMO.

Some of the text messages she sent her ' boyfriend' encouraging him to kill himself.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/08/us/te ... index.html
'The Italian concept of judicial truth does not trouble itself with reality; it controls the narrative by controlling the past"
User avatar
Annella
 
Posts: 1428
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: Thoughts on Suicide Text Case

Postby LarryK » Sat Jun 17, 2017 1:20 am

I am concerned where the legal theories behind this case could lead. Now that they've decided that words can kill, what's next? Anytime someone commits suicide, possible manslaughter charges against anyone who is judged to have treated him negatively? I'm not denying the possibility of charges of criminal harassment, but to judge the words to have caused death seems to me to have opened a dangerous door.
The brain is not configured in a way that makes obedience through logical, language-based propositions possible during distress and suffering. -- James Wilder, "Neurotheology and the Life Model"
LarryK
 
Posts: 858
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 9:57 pm

Re: Thoughts on Suicide Text Case

Postby Samson » Sat Jun 17, 2017 1:26 am

LarryK wrote:I am concerned where the legal theories behind this case could lead. Now that they've decided that words can kill, what's next? Anytime someone commits suicide, possible manslaughter charges against anyone who is judged to have treated him negatively? I'm not denying the possibility of charges of criminal harassment, but to judge the words to have caused death seems to me to have opened a dangerous door.

Social media have posed serious suicide risk from what I gather.
All fun and games till one's own daughter is arrested when an acquaintance commits suicide. Just thinking aloud.

I wonder if the case will engender a gender divide. :((:
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1976
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Thoughts on Suicide Text Case

Postby Desert Fox » Sat Jun 17, 2017 1:18 pm

One items is that disagreement is alright. . . .Nobody needs to paint anybody as enemies for simply disagreeing.
I imagine that she was pretty fragile herself and the first few texts seemed as if she was trying to help him at least at first.
My current position on this case is basically "I don't know."
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2280
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Thoughts on Suicide Text Case

Postby LarryK » Sun Jun 18, 2017 1:27 am

A few years ago a teenage girl in a nearby city committed suicide after several of her peers molested her while she was unconscious. The perpetrators were convicted of crimes involving the molestation, but were not charged concerning her death. I think this is the way it should be; I don't want to go to the place of adjudicating who is responsible for someone's suicide with criminal culpability for it. I'm wondering if Michelle Carter's team will appeal on First Amendment grounds, that the legal burden is too high to convict not only of harassment but manslaughter, on the basis of her words alone.
The brain is not configured in a way that makes obedience through logical, language-based propositions possible during distress and suffering. -- James Wilder, "Neurotheology and the Life Model"
LarryK
 
Posts: 858
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 9:57 pm

Re: Thoughts on Suicide Text Case

Postby Chris_Halkides » Sun Jun 18, 2017 10:54 am

Ms. Carter's conduct does not engender sympathy. The question, however, is whether this case makes for good law. I don't have an opinion myself, but here is a link that asks that question: https://blog.simplejustice.us/2017/06/1 ... -a-chance/
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1847
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Thoughts on Suicide Text Case

Postby LarryK » Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:29 am

Perhaps Ms. Carter can also legitimately be charged with failing to seek help when she knew that Mr. Roy was suicidal, if there's such a law on the books in Massachusetts. But that doesn't constitute manslaughter. (I do agree with laws that physically assisting someone commit suicide should be a crime.)
The brain is not configured in a way that makes obedience through logical, language-based propositions possible during distress and suffering. -- James Wilder, "Neurotheology and the Life Model"
LarryK
 
Posts: 858
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 9:57 pm

Re: Thoughts on Suicide Text Case

Postby kiwiburner » Tue Jun 20, 2017 1:12 am

Samson wrote:
LarryK wrote:I am concerned where the legal theories behind this case could lead. Now that they've decided that words can kill, what's next? Anytime someone commits suicide, possible manslaughter charges against anyone who is judged to have treated him negatively? I'm not denying the possibility of charges of criminal harassment, but to judge the words to have caused death seems to me to have opened a dangerous door.

Social media have posed serious suicide risk from what I gather.
All fun and games till one's own daughter is arrested when an acquaintance commits suicide. Just thinking aloud.

I wonder if the case will engender a gender divide. :((:


Samson - NZ's crimes act directly addresses this issue: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/publ ... 29347.html

Relevantly:
s 179 Aiding and abetting suicide
(1)Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years who—
(a)incites, counsels, or procures any person to commit suicide, if that person commits or attempts to commit suicide in consequence thereof
kiwiburner
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2016 8:12 am

Re: Thoughts on Suicide Text Case

Postby Samson » Thu Jun 22, 2017 8:23 pm

kiwiburner wrote:
Samson wrote:
LarryK wrote:I am concerned where the legal theories behind this case could lead. Now that they've decided that words can kill, what's next? Anytime someone commits suicide, possible manslaughter charges against anyone who is judged to have treated him negatively? I'm not denying the possibility of charges of criminal harassment, but to judge the words to have caused death seems to me to have opened a dangerous door.

Social media have posed serious suicide risk from what I gather.
All fun and games till one's own daughter is arrested when an acquaintance commits suicide. Just thinking aloud.

I wonder if the case will engender a gender divide. :((:


Samson - NZ's crimes act directly addresses this issue: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/publ ... 29347.html

Relevantly:
s 179 Aiding and abetting suicide
(1)Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years who—
(a)incites, counsels, or procures any person to commit suicide, if that person commits or attempts to commit suicide in consequence thereof

Thanks for that. Looks like she would be toast down under.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1976
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Thoughts on Suicide Text Case

Postby LarryK » Tue Aug 08, 2017 1:49 am

I want to share my current thinking. I don't have time to research this case for myself. But on the basis of what I have read on this forum and Facebook and a few links, I consider this a wrongful conviction unless certain conditions are met.

It's not a wrongful conviction if Michelle gave direct assistance through research or material provision, AND she was convicted on that basis. (But I don't get the idea that this was the reason for her conviction.)
It's not a wrongful conviction if there is an explicit law against urging suicide that passes constitutional muster. (But I don't believe there is such a law in that jurisdiction, and even if there were, it could face a First Amendment challenge.)
It's not a wrongful conviction if the verdict was criminal harassment. But that's not the verdict here.

The idea I get here is that the judge convicted her on the basis of making her words to be the basis of manslaughter. There is nothing in the manslaughter laws that provides for words to be the basis of manslaughter. The judge invented this "law" in order to be able to convict her. It's an emotional reaction which is understandable since many people have had strong emotional reactions to Michelle's words. But what is the basis under law? Once you allow for words to become the basis of manslaughter, without precise advance definition in the law, if someone commits suicide after hearing or reading something, it opens all kinds of cans of worms as well as providing a possible means of persecution for expressing unpopular beliefs. This becomes a kind of ex post facto law, where certain kinds of words are retroactively declared to be manslaughter if they can be connected to a suicide. (And even if there were an explicit law about certain kinds of words, it would need to be tested by the First Amendment, if in the United States.)

Even if Michelle were rightly convicted under law, since she was only 17, and clearly mentally ill, she needs psychiatric help not prison. I would support a mandatory psychiatric program, perhaps in an institution, to avoid prison (assuming there were a rightful conviction.)

If anyone has FACTUAL corrections to make here, please let me know.
The brain is not configured in a way that makes obedience through logical, language-based propositions possible during distress and suffering. -- James Wilder, "Neurotheology and the Life Model"
LarryK
 
Posts: 858
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 9:57 pm


Return to Injustice Anywhere Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron