Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Legal Ramifications of Cyber Bullying??

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Legal Ramifications of Cyber Bullying??

    So, I'm undecided how I feel about the recent case of Michelle Carter and her ex-boyfriend who killed himself, so would love to hear others' thoughts.

    Now, don't get me wrong... the girl is an absolute, heinous bitch!

    Morally, she is 200% repugnant.

    I cannot fathom how a person could ever be so cruel to another human being.

    However, is she truly LEGALLY responsible for her ex's actions?

    This is where my conundrum lies.

    If you're not familiar with the story - go ahead and Google it - but, the gist is - the boy, Conrad Roy (18), had been suicidal for years. Two years prior to his death, Michelle had actually been actively trying to get him to get help for his suicidal thoughts. But something changed (her defensive insists it was a change in her meds) and she began to instead encourage Conrad to just go ahead and kill himself. Even making fun of him when he backed out. Eventually, he did, and supposedly Michelle (then 17) was on the phone with him when he died. Her defense also said that she thought she was helping him.

    Like I said, morally, she is pure, unadulterated evil! Who does this?!?!?

    But, legally?

    I mean, if I tell all of you -- Give me $1,000!! -- and you guys actually send me the money - am I now guilty of robbery?

    Like I said, I'm not sure how I feel about the legal aspect of it. She wasn't physically there. She didn't physically provide the means for him to kill himself. I just don't know.

    Of course, the courts have convicted her, and she may spend 20 years in prison, setting a new precedent.

    Hmmm...

    Looking forward to hearing what everyone else thinks!
    Kimberly
    PEGym.com

    Follow us on Twitter! https://twitter.com/pegym

  • #2
    I haven't read the case but I'll give some general thoughts:

    When you're dealing with someone that you know is mentally unwell, perhaps even mentally unfit (depending on how suicidal he was at various times and what other symptoms accompanied it) and you deliberately and consciously manipulate that person for your own agenda - then yes you bear some responsibility.

    Take it in a slightly different context: I deal with seniors a lot, some of them are a little more "there" than others. Many years ago we had one old lady that somehow got on some product scammers phone list, and sensing there was a vulnerable and impressionable person on the other line convinced her that she HAD to buy all sorts of things. We're talking things that in general no senior person has a use for. 200 plastic mugs with her name on them to give out to friends to remember her by for example. He would call her up almost every week and harass and manipulate her, sometimes to the point of tears, until she bought stuff from him. Literally in tears - he would tell her things like she was going to die soon and no one would even remember her at all if she didn't have these things to give them to remember her by, and didn't she want to be remembered and not completely forgotten? When she died she had boxes and boxes of useless personalized stuff in her apartment that she had spent a small fortune on. Was she entirely at fault? She was living in an assisted living care home because she couldn't properly manage living on her own, but they don't police the resident's phone calls. Really she was at the point where she shouldn't have been making financial decisions - she was at the point where she was very impressionable, very easily manipulated, and very vulnerable. And this guy took advantage of that and had her buy probably $30k in product that she had zero use for.

    It sounds to me like this Conrad was in a similar state. If he'd been suicidal for years then he was also likely clinically depressed. It sounds like she took advantage of that, knowing his vulnerable mental state, and consciously and deliberately harassed and manipulated him.

    Even if you go by the "have to bear responsibility for our own actions", then surely she must have to bear some responsibility for her deliberate actions? You don't need to physically pull a trigger to be complicit in someone's death.

    (edited to correct typo )
    Qandisa
    Senior Member
    Member of the Month March 2016
    Last edited by Qandisa; 06-23-2017, 11:45 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      From Q's post above^^^...

      You don't need to physically pull a trigger to be complicit it someone's death.

      Under common US law, She SHOULD BE tried for voluntary manslaughter. The evidence proved she encouraged the victim to commit an unlawful act (suicide), making her LIABLE.

      Comment


      • #4
        Agree with Q's above. The link is a tweet thread, with some of the actual messages.

        https://twitter.com/1GuyX/status/877606752526753792


        As for the example in the op. That is not robbery, if anyone on this forum for example gives you $1,000 willingly and no promises was made in return.

        Now you cannot also perpetrate a false story for others giving you money. For example saying you were robbed on Christmas. That is fraud.
        Start(11/14/2016) : 7.25 BPEL , 5.5 MSEG
        02/11/2017 : 7.6 BPEL, 5.6 MSEG

        GOAL : 7.5 BPEL , 6.25 MSEG

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by jockinthebox View Post
          From Q's post above^^^...

          You don't need to physically pull a trigger to be complicit it someone's death.

          Under common US law, She SHOULD BE tried for voluntary manslaughter. The evidence proved she encouraged the victim to commit an unlawful act (suicide), making her LIABLE.
          Is encouragement enough though? I mean, obviously the courts have found it so, now, but - should it be?

          Again, using my very simplistic example - am I complicit robbery?

          What if I say - "Hey, Jock! You should go to the nearest convenience store and steal a candy bar!" Am I now guilty of shoplifting, if you do it?

          discreet had some interesting points in his response (I got it in my response announcement - not sure why he deleted it). But, I think I agreed with a general point -- that there's danger in taking responsibility for actions out of an individual's hands.

          I feel like we're a frog in a pot kind of society lately. Where things change just a little... we lose more liberties and give up just a little more personal responsibility (blame others for our issues)... and the water gets a little warmer and a little warmer... and we stay in the pot, until it's too late and we're cooked.

          Like I said - the girl is evil. No question. I honestly don't know how she could live with herself. My heart breaks for his family and friends.

          But, will we give up even more personal responsibility? Is it a slippery slope?

          You work as a waitress and are rude to a customer, and he leaves angry and gets in a car accident... Are you responsible?

          You're a teacher and give a student a failing grade, and they are angry and beat up a fellow student after school... Are you responsible?

          You have an employee who isn't performing, and despite numerous warnings isn't improving, so you fire them... Upset, they come back with a gun, shooting several co-workers and kill themselves... Are you responsible?

          I know these are far-fetched examples, but it's the kind of thing I worry about.

          I worry that our society is becoming one where no one wants to take responsibility for their own decisions, their own actions, their own life.
          Kimberly
          PEGym.com

          Follow us on Twitter! https://twitter.com/pegym

          Comment


          • #6
            for the U.S. there is the "freedom of speech"; however one can not yell fire in a movie theater (example).

            The idea of falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater arose from the Supreme Court's 1919 decision in the case Schenck v. United States. The Court ruled unanimously that the First Amendment, though it protects freedom of expression, does not protect dangerous speech.
            Possibly to be challenged/determined in the courts, does communicating encouragement to 'go ahead kill yourself' as used in the situation involving this young girl, fall within the above ruling Schenck v. United States

            Did it fit the scenario of crowded theater ? Was it dangerous speech ? If one yells 'go ahead kill yourself' in a theater would it be 'dangerous speech'.
            Valued Member of 11 years at the TheBiohacker
            Looks are deceiving, mirrors don't lie.

            Comment


            • #7
              There's probably multiple ways to argue the case.

              Assisted suicided which is illegal in many states, and illegal if you're not a physician; you could also argue varying degrees of manslaughter.

              Comment


              • #8
                I believe the case you cited, THE STATE vs. the girl who encouraged the victim, was tried legally, under US laws of VOLUNTARY manslaughter. If she had been charged with criminal negligence or criminally negligent homicide, it would have been MORE DIFFICULT TO FIND HER GUILTY, IMO. Here's why...A DUI driver who "accidentally" kills an innocent victim in a car crash can be charged with negligent homicide, but INTENT to willfully commit homicide usually is not evident and therefore, the perpetrator is instead charged with involuntary manslaughter, since INTENT to commit homicide is not evident, in the commission of a crime (death of an innocent victim in an accident) while committing another crime (DUI).

                Suicide IS a CRIME under law, so encouraging someone to commit a crime is NEGLIGENT behavior (unless insanity can be proven, temporary or otherwise). The criminality of the behavior is debatable, but when a law is broken the court system generally will prosecute under strict guidelines specific to the law broken. The trial is more a determination of the jury as to the questionable INTENT of the defendant based upon the evidence. In the girl's case, she was convicted, because the evidence on the victim's phone PROVED she encouraged him to commit a criminal offense under the law (suicide). If it had been a casual remark or text like "go blow your brains out" and not substantiated by further evidence showing INTENT to encourage him repeatedly to kill himself, then she would likely have NOT been charged, nor convicted.
                jockinthebox
                Retired Moderator
                Member of the Month May 2015
                PEGym Hero
                Last edited by jockinthebox; 06-23-2017, 01:14 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  After reading their text, it looks like she really wants him to die ASAP. Its like somehow she can benefit from his death or something.

                  I understand where you from coming from, but this girl is worse and even more scary than a murderer.
                  Like the other poster above, I also work with senior citizens a lot. A lot of them are mentally unwell and easy to manipulate. If I spend hours everyday in the past months trying to manipulate them into thinking they they are unloved and should kill themselves, and they ended up killing themselves. I think I should be charged with manslaughter too.
                  This is very different from your example where you are just like "give me money" and getting charged with robbery.
                  If I work with a vulnerable senior citizen who is mentally unwell and I am able to manipulate them to give me their money/house. I think I will be charged too. Not the same as just simply asking someone online to "send me money plz"

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Kim,

                    The examples you worry about are not similar, this is very close to black and white. Those examples are much beyond foreseeable. Michelle Carter constantly and viciously was attempting to persuade Conrad Roy to kill himself. Even when the boy had much doubts, she attempts to erase those doubts and kept pushing him to commit suicide.
                    Start(11/14/2016) : 7.25 BPEL , 5.5 MSEG
                    02/11/2017 : 7.6 BPEL, 5.6 MSEG

                    GOAL : 7.5 BPEL , 6.25 MSEG

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Clockwork0 View Post
                      Kim,

                      The examples you worry about are not similar, this is very close to black and white. Those examples are much beyond foreseeable. Michelle Carter constantly and viciously was attempting to persuade Conrad Roy to kill himself. Even when the boy had much doubts, she attempts to erase those doubts and kept pushing him to commit suicide.
                      ^^^INTENT is what convicted her, because she ENCOURAGED a criminal act, under law, as substantiated by the EVIDENCE in this case.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by KMWylie View Post
                        Is encouragement enough though? I mean, obviously the courts have found it so, now, but - should it be?

                        Again, using my very simplistic example - am I complicit robbery?

                        What if I say - "Hey, Jock! You should go to the nearest convenience store and steal a candy bar!" Am I now guilty of shoplifting, if you do it?
                        Not at all the same situation.

                        If Jock were emotionally distraught, and depressed, and in a questionable mental state, and you maliciously and deliberately hounded him relentlessly for months on end persuading him to commit a crime... if you knew that he was unstable and vulnerable and you deliberately sought to take advantage of that for your own ends through conscious and intentional manipulation of him... then yes you should be held partially responsible for said crime.

                        To look at it another way, if you're dealing with someone mentally handicapped/challenged, and you tell them over and over and over again that it's okay for them to steal and it'll be fine, and you badger them about it relentlessly until they finally break down and steal for you -- are you not partly responsible for that? Is someone who is emotionally distraught and clinically depressed not really in a very similar state? Often they're not fully aware of their actions, they don't see the impact of them, they don't fully understand what's going on. How is willful and intentional manipulation of someone in that state not a criminal act?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Well DAMN,...now you're criminally liable, Kim! I think I'll go BUY a candy bar! SO, since I never eat candy and I'm breaking my sacred diet law, I'll See ya in COURT!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Wouldn't this count as an assisted suicide?

                            I was curious about this case too and hadn't heard the verdict yet. I was sure she was going to get off on a technicality, that was before I found out about her character - heartless.

                            What are her chances of early parole for good behavior in say 10-15 years?
                            Sex is the great leveler, taste the great divider. - Pauline Kael

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              The young girl had mental issue. The young man had mental issues. Two unifying conditions; mental issues and young. The young do not really understand the value of life. Add mental illness and the drugs that some guys give to help control it with youth and you have a disaster in the making. This was a horrible tragedy.
                              The world's still a toy if you just stay a boy!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X