Asked if they thought [17-year-old Michelle] Carter’s messages convinced [18-year-old Conrad] Roy to kill himself, his grandfather Conrad Roy Sr. said, “Her texts had a big influence on what happened.”
२८ फेब्रुवारी, २०१५
"It is a slippery slope if the government is now going to prosecute people under a manslaughter — a 20-year felony charge — for not preventing those who want to commit suicide..."
"... and that’s what they’re trying to do here."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१४ टिप्पण्या:
Another Prosecutor without pity in a Town without pity. All he needs is a Pittsburgh Pirates cap and a hood.
Next they will start charging the Defense Lawyer with Aiding and Abetting as an Accessory After the Fact.
Thank God for Juries.
I don't know about the legal aspect but if it happened as described then that is one sick girl. Sounds much like munchhausen by proxy syndrome.
I see movie in this. who would star as Miss Carter?
No slippery slope here. The defendant didn't fail to prevent a suicide; she actively incited a suicide. This is more analogous to a defendant yelling "Burn this MF down" in front of an agitated crowd, than to a defendant passively witnessing a riot.
Granted, the prosecutor will have a tough case to make-- that the defendant knew the likely outcome of her words and intended for the victim to act. But the trail of texts she left behind look pretty damn incriminating.
You can't make someone commit suicide.
This has been a trend lately, hasn't it?
Starting with the kids who were bullies to the Irish girl, and the roommate of the gay kid at Rutgers.
It's a bad trend.
Mass is a common law not penal code state. The two key elements here are wanton or reckless conduct causing the death. Under the model jury instructions, this girl is in trouble.
Mass SJC Model Jury Instructions, Homicide.
INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER CAUSED BY WANTON AND RECKLESS CONDUCT.
Wanton and reckless conduct is intentional conduct that created a high degree of likelihood that substantial harm will result to another person. Wanton and reckless conduct usually involves an affirmative act. An omission or failure to act may constitute wanton and reckless conduct where the defendant has a duty to act.
To prove that the defendant is guilty of involuntary manslaughter because of wanton and reckless conduct, the Commonwealth must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. The defendant caused the victim's death;
2. The defendant intended the conduct that caused the victim's death;
3. The defendant's conduct was wanton and reckless...
A defendant's act is the cause of [the victim's] death where the act, in a natural and continuous sequence, results in death, and without which death would not have occurred.**
The second element is that the defendant intended the conduct that caused the death. The Commonwealth is not required to prove that the defendant intended to cause the death.
The third element is that the defendant's conduct was wanton and reckless. Wanton and reckless conduct is conduct that creates a high degree of likelihood that substantial harm will result to another. It is conduct involving a grave risk of harm to another that a person undertakes with indifference to or disregard of the consequences of such conduct.
Whether conduct is wanton and reckless depends either on what the defendant knew or how a reasonable person would have acted knowing what the defendant knew. If the defendant realized the grave risk created by his conduct, his subsequent act amounts to wanton and reckless conduct whether or not a reasonable person would have realized the risk of grave danger. Even if the defendant himself did not realize the grave risk of harm to another, the act would constitute wanton and reckless conduct if a reasonable person, knowing what the defendant knew, would have realized the act posed a risk of grave danger to another.
It is not enough for the Commonwealth to prove the defendant acted negligently, that is, in a manner that a reasonably careful person would not have acted. The Commonwealth must prove that the defendant's actions went beyond and amounted to wanton and reckless conduct as I have defined that term.
**Commonwealth v. Life Care Ctrs. of Am., Inc., 456 Mass. 826, 832 (2010) ("Involuntary manslaughter is 'an unlawful homicide unintentionally caused by an act which constitutes such a disregard of probable harmful consequences to another as to amount to wanton or reckless conduct'" See also Commonwealth v. Rhoades, 379 Mass. 810, 825 (1980).
CStanley said...
I don't know about the legal aspect but if it happened as described then that is one sick girl. Sounds much like munchhausen by proxy syndrome.
I was thinking exactly the same thing. If the reporting is accurate (we can never forget that disclaimer), then she sounds like a real piece of work.
I also had the same thought as CStanley.
The irony is that you will be prosecuted if you attempt to prevent the abortion of a wholly innocent human life. Even demonstrating scientific evidence that a human life begins at conception (i.e. fertilization) will be construed as a hate crime.
She sounds evil. She encouraged him to kill himself and then turned around and made a public display calling attention to herself under the guise of suicide prevention. Sounds like she was bored and wanted attention.
If it were my grandson, I'd have just killed her. Evil deserves punishment.
"Get back in?"
Was she there or was it a text?
The rest of her behavior is likely what will do her in.
". . . police say his 18-year-old girlfriend goaded him into taking his life with three chilling words: 'Get back in.'”
How do the police know this? Was there someone else there who witnessed the suicide (and what did that witness do to try to stop it?).
I'm very suspicious about this story.
That looks like murder to me, not manslaughter. She didn't 'prevent him' from killing himself, she used emotional abuse to get him to kill himself.
There is a reason straight slippery-slope arguments are usually a fallacy: the defense attorney is full of crap
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा