The Boston Herald reports:
“Carter is the first defendant to have been convicted of killing a person who took his own life, even though she neither provided the fatal means nor was present when the suicide occurred,” Carter’s attorneys wrote....
Carter’s lawyers urged the SJC to take the case because, they contend, convicting someone of involuntary manslaughter for encouraging another person to commit suicide “with words alone” violates the First and Fifth Amendments.
I objected to the prosecution in a number of posts, including
this one:
There's too much danger of selective prosecution, going after the people who seem awful, and too much power put in the hands of suicidal people to wreak harm on others, finally going through with a suicide after someone who's making them angry lets slip with some text daring them to stop talking about it and do it already.
पोस्ट्स
७३ टिप्पण्या:
So how would you punish this evil person who clearly coerced this kid to take his own life?
"Gahrie said...
So how would you punish this evil person who clearly coerced this kid to take his own life?"
Other than shaming, you don't.
I agree with the objection to her prosecution.
I suspect Pam Smart is watching closely.
Dr. Kevorkian is dead.
Long live Dr. Kevorkian.
Gahrie said...
So how would you punish this evil person who clearly coerced this kid to take his own life?
The "kid" was older.
How should we punish the evil person - that'd be you! - whose speech advocates imprisoning a child for their speech advocating death?
Hang her!!!
Your objection is too hard to read. It should have been broken up into two or three sentences.
“Other than shaming, you don't.”
Exactly. Talk about high-tech lynch mobs. This is a classic example. Yes, she’s the dirtbag that prog trash culture designed her to be. But she committed no crime here.
Althouse: There's too much danger of selective prosecution, going after the people who seem awful, and too much power put in the hands of suicidal people to wreak harm on others, finally going through with a suicide after someone who's making them angry lets slip with some text daring them to stop talking about it and do it already.
Remember the Mass SJC ruled on probable cause before Carter's trial. Much of that opinion would allay those concerns.
In sum, we conclude that there was probable cause to show that the coercive quality of the defendant's verbal conduct overwhelmed whatever willpower the eighteen year old victim had to cope with his depression, and that but for the defendant's admonishments, pressure, and instructions, the victim would not have gotten back into the truck and poisoned himself to death. Consequently, the evidence before the grand jury was sufficient for a finding of probable cause that the defendant, by wanton or reckless conduct, caused the victim's death.
It is important to articulate what this case is not about. It is not about a person seeking to ameliorate the anguish of someone coping with a terminal illness and questioning the value of life. Nor is it about a person offering support, comfort, and even assistance to a mature adult who, confronted with such circumstances, has decided to end his or her life. These situations are easily distinguishable from the present case, in which the grand jury heard evidence suggesting a systematic campaign of coercion on which the virtually present defendant embarked -- captured and preserved through her text messages -- that targeted the equivocating young victim's insecurities and acted to subvert his willpower in favor of her own. On the specific facts of this case, there was sufficient evidence to support a probable cause finding that the defendant's command to the victim in the final moments of his life to follow through on his suicide attempt was a direct, causal link to his death.
It seems he had been using the threat of suicide as a method to manipulate her into action for some time. She stood up for herself, and his time was up. It's dumb to punish her.
She stood up for herself
You mean, as opposed to leaving him?
Perhaps the process must be the punishment. It is both rotten and forlorn to hope that she suffered the maximum indignities as a prisoner, but certainly she has spent time and money and, one hopes, has had her attention gotten.
She is, hopefully, marked now; hopefully, future members of society who deal with her perforce may at least be warned of her nature. This will also reduce our rational sympathy with her, quite inevitable, future victims and we can enjoy the entertainment more virtuously.
His family can take care of this. Keep tabs on her. Talk to her employers. Find out who her boyfriends are.
Make life so bad for her that her only opinion is suicide. Justice.
EDH said...
[some judge] "In sum, we conclude that there was probable cause to show that ..."
...some judges believe they can read minds and predict the future.
"that targeted the equivocating young victim's insecurities and acted to subvert his willpower in favor of her own."
That explains why she was charged with "targeting insecurities" and "subverting willpower".
She cast a spell on him.
EDH -
I do not see how the instances the SJC cites are "easily distinguishable". Saying that doesn't make them so, and they appear to provide nothing else. To the contrary, you can easily imagine a prosecution in connection with an assisted suicide. I'm with our hostess on this one.
It was kind of like when Hannibal Lector made Multiple Miggs swallow his own tongue.
Our various state and federal legal systems are all about selective enforcement.
Bill Clinton lies to the grand jury, no prosecution. Barry Bonds gets charged with lying to the grand jury (acquitted) after spending millions in legal fees.
Clapper and Holder and Comey lie to Congress, nothing. Roger Clemens lies to Congress, gets charged and is acquitted after millions of dollars in legal fees.
Some no name 20 something gets charged for forging a prescription for pain meds, gets sent to jail. Jeb’s daughter does it, nothing.
Some guys out west don’t get federal permits or fees to graze on land, get a stand-off with the police and get charged (and acquitted).
13 million people come here and/or stay here illegally, no problem.
Marijuana is illegal under federal law. States start giving out licenses to drug dealers and taking taxes.
Guys selling pot in states that don’t flour federal law get the back of the hand from the DEA.
Either pot is a dangerous drug or it isn’t. Selling something without a state license isn’t a federal offense, much less one that deserves a 20 year prison sentence.
The Rule of Law in this country is broken.
Our leaders are jagoffs. Teach kids not to respect these people and teach them these people are liars and corrupt.
Clinton and W and Obama and the test wanted a nation that doesn’t follow or respect the law or law enforcement.
It’s coming. And their kids and grandkids are going to have to survive it.
Involuntary Manslaughter means there was no intent to kill other than wanton negligence imputed to the Defendant. But a suicide case is overwhelmed by contributory negligence. The conviction will not stand review. This hard case will not be allowed to make bad law.
Go Plan yourself is congruent to involuntary manslaughter. Whereas actual Planning is a normalized measure of social advocacy.
I think you’re supposed to burn her.
Maybe he friend shopped. He actively sought out a friend who would help him in his journey off the cliff. If she had said encouraging words, he would have moved on to another friend.
“Maybe he friend shopped ...” And maybe we need to punish this little bitch so severely that no other little bitch is tempted to do the same.
I haven't read the initiating post or any of the comments closely enough to tell whether anyone has said expressly or by implication: "Good for her and fuck him."
But somehow I get that sense.
I saw a cartoon once. A guy is kicking back in his chair with his feet on his desk holding a phone to his ear. In the background are a couple other people talking on phones and a sign that says, "Suicide Help Line".
The guy says into his phone, "Well there's your problem, the Safety's on."
How should we punish the evil person - that'd be you! - whose speech advocates imprisoning a child for their speech advocating death?
The bitch didn't "advocate death", she bullied a troubled soul into killing himself.
If the genders had been reversed I suspect many of you would have a different opinion.
I read a story once, some Victorian adventure thing, where one man had murdered another, and for some reason the locals could not inflict the death penalty on the killer. So they chained the killer to the corpse until the corpse rotted away. Something like that might be appropriate in this case.
If I tell a heavily intoxicated person to go fuck themselves, and they do it, am I guilty of rape?
If someone says I hope you kill yourself" is it attempted murder?
Widmerpool said...
EDH -
I do not see how the instances the SJC cites are "easily distinguishable".
EDH: "Much of that opinion would allay those [Althouse] concerns."
Althouse: "after someone who's making them angry lets slip with some text daring them to stop talking about it and do it already."
SJC: "...grand jury heard evidence suggesting a systematic campaign of coercion..."
I'm trying to analyze this as a judge interpreting the law as it is. I see both sides on this.
The SJC is saying that courts and juries can distinguish between a reflexive comment that one "lets slip" and a "systematic campaign of coercion" rising to the level of "wanton and reckless conduct" with a "high degree of likelihood that substantial harm will result".
From the Mass Model Jury Instructions:
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.
As I said back in June...
I believe there's a merger here between tort and criminal law, where she did enough to put him in a position to create a duty to rescue him (e.g., call his family or 911) in order to avoid the involuntary manslaughter charge.
It's not correct to say that she wasn't present when the suicide occurred. Being actively inside somebody's head, somebody's heart, somebody's thought and emotional processes - that's being there. I don't care if the medium is a cell phone or two feet of air.
When a good friend killed himself I was surprised. When I learned the full story it was clear he had been terrorizing his ex. He had threatened to kill himself many times on the phone with her. She was surprised the latest call was different from the others. But it was clear my friend inflicted a LOT of pain prior to his exit. You really should consider this woman’s full experience that started much earlier than the crucial texts mentioned above.
What really would you do when in her shoes?
This is actually a meaty substantive issue on "proximate cause." Did that shitty young woman actually help cause the young man's suicide?
Whether X causes Y is often an interesting and nuanced inquiry.
What do you do with the yahoos in a crowd watching a man standing on a high ledge of a building who yell "jump"? Are they all guilty of a crime?
Same goes for the fellow who is told by Bubba, "Here, hold my beer and watch this" who then goes on say to Bubba---I dare you?
I dunno..."Get back in the truck" is what turns this case for me. That statement seems like "fighting words" or "immediate threat". Something that falls under speech that isn't protected by the first amendment. Not that the statement is actually fighting words or an immediate threat, it just seems similar.
Mike, would the pain your friend inflicted be enough for you to goad him to kill himself?
If I were "in her shoes," I would stop talking to him, period. Cut all ties. It's surprisingly easy, what with door locks and Caller ID. What I wouldn't do is jeer at him until he was dead.
Being cruel isn’t a crime. But just because it isn’t a crime doesn’t mean the rest of us can’t make th fuel people’s lives miserable. That’s not a crime either.
The prosecution argued that the words created a duty to act, so I think the prosecutor will argue on appeal that the conviction rests not on the words alone, but also on the failure to act, which in this case was not calling 911 for help.
Under that theory, encouraging him to shoot himself might not have led to a conviction, if he shot himself and died instantly. And in this case she might have avoided a conviction if she had called 911, even if help didn't get there in time to save his life.
Is the 'defense' ... She didn't do anything wrong or anything punishable? Not everything wrong can or should be punished in a legal proceedings.
Times change. Cruel & unusual doesnt mean what it used to in 1790. Can one presume that as society moves towards gender equality, that a necessary (unconscious) action by the State will be to create "new" types of law that will lead to increased incarceration rates of women, so that there is not such a gap in the # of men v the # of women who are prisoners of the State? Surely in a more equal society, we would demand that the levels of incarceration become more equal! What was done in this case may be the "new" type of law that the State has unconsciously suggested to Society, as a means to increase the # of female prisoners.
I am not saying a man wouldnt also be convicted, if roles reversed. However, where it is a fact that men are far more likely to be successful at committing suicide - if the State is going down the road of trying to lay charges against parties that are/were (possible) contributors to the suicidal act - it will, statistically, likely be more women charged with the crime than men. (ie ex-spouses)
Nah. That theory dont likely work. But asking Why? & What Next? in these scenarios doesnt help.
Mass SC already ruled on this once. It should be a very interesting case.
I am glad they took it.
Um - reading the comments above, I realized that most probably don't know Mass law. There have been multiple manslaughter convictions in Massachusetts for "word" deeds. Like the man who was divorcing his wife who told her to go ahead and shoot herself. She did. He wound up in jail.
So Massachusetts law is quite different than that of most states, and I believe the Massachusetts SC will probably uphold the decision. One can disagree with Massachusetts case law, but it has been relatively consistent.
What will be interesting is whether this case is appealed to the federal court system.
The trial judge ruled that the situation changed when the young man got out of the truck and the defendant told him to get back in. And the trial judge's ruling was quite careful:
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2017/06/16/michelle-carter-texting-suicide-trial-verdict-conrad-roy/
“This court finds that instructing Mr. Roy to get back in the truck constituted wanton and reckless conduct by Ms. Carter, creating a situation where there is a high degree of likelihood a high degree of harm would result to Mr. Roy,” Moniz said.
The judge's ruling found Carter guilty by both virtue of her action and her inaction. Under Massachusetts case law, it follows precedent.
D,
You're right about suicide rates. ISTR that Christina Hoff Sommers wrote (about an AAUW study) that more women attempt suicide than men, though more men actually die. At the time (twenty or so years ago), five times more men than women succeeded in killing themselves. Possibly because the guys used things like guns and knives, whereas the gals were inclined to overdoses of sleeping pills.
But I don't think that the aim here is to incarcerate more women. No, the huge majority of prisoners will remain men, and that's the way the authorities like it.
Mass. SJC: “...there was probable cause to show ... that but for the defendant's admonishments, pressure, and instructions, the victim would not have gotten back into the truck and poisoned himself to death.”
What bullshit! No one, not even the omniscient judges, could possibly know this. On the other hand, isn’t Salem in Massachusetts? Perhaps the Court should have provided for trial by witch cake, prayer or dunking. The penalty, of course, should be burning.
The Republic faces far more danger from our megalomaniacal judicial oligarchy than from mean-spirited 18-year-old girls.
Try these: Husband A on ledge, “My wife is leaving me. I’ll jump.” Wife B (brought by police), “Okay then. Jump. It will save me the trouble of divorcing you.” Husband jumps. Wifely crime? A (for the 10th time, brandishing a gun), “Voices are telling me that I should rob the - - bank.” B, “I’m tired of hearing about it. If you’re going to do it, go for it today.” B robs the bank today, kills a guard. Is B accomplice (or something) to robbery? To felony murder?
Just because you are a book-keeper in a death camp, doesn't mean you are a killer.
Oh wait...
hombre said...
Try these: Husband A on ledge, “My wife is leaving me. I’ll jump.” Wife B (brought by police), “Okay then. Jump. It will save me the trouble of divorcing you.”
Notice, even Dirty Harry was careful enough never to exactly tell the guy on the ledge to jump.
https://youtu.be/Nglh-BExEus?t=1m40s
MaxedOutMama: “... Like the man who was divorcing his wife who told her to go ahead and shoot herself. She did. He wound up in jail.”
Massachusetts, home of the late Ted Kennedy, remains at the forefront of the liberal movement to diminish personal responsibility for one’s actions. (Chappaquidick, not analogous, but germane.)
To get a handle on selective prosecution (or if she actually gets prosecuted perhaps selective punishment) keep an eye on Elizabeth Holmes. I'm guessing Martha Stewart will end up being treated more harshly.
In some parts of the world this case would have begun a inter-clan feud.
In other parts the judgement would have been for blood-money, or for a forced marriage of the accused with a member of the offended clan.
I hope this court doesn't have any of the same judges that screwed up the Amirault molestation hoax case in the 90's.
To me the matter is simple: do we wish to encourage egregious behavior like Carter’s? Or do we wish to discourage it? If the latter, then she must be punished, and severely.
If they'd been on the phone it might be a close call, but texting? The pen isn't mightier than the tongue.
Mike, would the pain your friend inflicted be enough for you to goad him to kill himself?
If I were "in her shoes," I would stop talking to him, period. Cut all ties. It's surprisingly easy, what with door locks and Caller ID. What I wouldn't do is jeer at him until he was dead.
Michelle, I don't understand the question. I do not believe my friend deserved to die, nor did anyone goad him to do so, to my knowledge. But when confronted by many (pre-cell era) telephone calls from my friend threatening to kill himself the woman might have eventually said something like "whatever" or "go ahead;" and if so, I wouldn't want her punished for reacting that way under emotional duress.
I'm pretty sure the parallel's break down. The woman did not command my friend to "get back in there" and do it. She merely stopped really caring about the threats, and did not give in to his demands she resume the relationship. For survivors, the suicide is traumatic. The guilt is real and natural. He was loved by many but not the gal he was obsessed with. Too bad all our love didn't reach him when he was at that low point.
I love animals and hate (pretty much) humans, so I can't say I'm sorry he's dead. If he was a hunter, then I'm doubly glad that's gone. If you think my comment is pointless, and frivolous then you're one of the people who I'd wish would exit this world most expeditiously. I encourage you to off yourself in as bloodless a manner as humanly possible. I abhor gore, except for Leslie Gore. If you're a hunter then I doubly wish you goodbye (and good riddance). The young man who killed himself failed to realize that she didn't own him. "Don't tell me what to do."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QEqLTbEXy0
...and too much power put in the hands of suicidal people...
Oh, I know. If it's one thing suicidal people have too much of it's power. Except for that whole "will to live" thing. Yeah, but other than that they're really powerful. What-fucking-ever.
There's too much danger of selective prosecution, going after the people who seem awful
There is danger of that in every case. Even those running for and/or becoming president.
too much power put in the hands of suicidal people to wreak harm on others, finally going through with a suicide after someone who's making them angry lets slip with some text daring them to stop talking about it and do it already.
That's a question for the jury. Motion to dismiss denied.
Curious George said...
"Gahrie said...
So how would you punish this evil person who clearly coerced this kid to take his own life?"
Other than shaming, you don't.
Agree, totally.
The trial judge ruled that the situation changed when the young man got out of the truck and the defendant told him to get back in. And the trial judge's ruling was quite careful:
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2017/06/16/michelle-carter-texting-suicide-trial-verdict-conrad-roy/
“This court finds that instructing Mr. Roy to get back in the truck constituted wanton and reckless conduct by Ms. Carter, creating a situation where there is a high degree of likelihood a high degree of harm would result to Mr. Roy,” Moniz said.
So "get back in the truck" really was the clincher, then. And I have to say it makes me uncomfortable too.
On the other hand, maybe the instruction to "get back in the truck" was just another symptom of her being fed up, as she reluctantly engaged in the latest in a long line of mind games? How many times had she been here before, and gotten sucked into giving sympathy before, to the point that now the whole thing just elicited irritated eye-rolls when her activities were interrupted by yet another distress call via text message?
Was she thinking the whole time, "Fuck, here we go yet again." Was she thinking, "No, I'm not wasting any more emotional energy playing this stupid emotional game any more." If she was, well then, I guess Ann is right.
This case really bothered me. Sure what she did was morally reprehensible, but it should not have been criminal. Ultimately that young man decided to take his own life. Even if she encouraged it, he still made the decision. The state's argument is very dangerous, in that if you take an action that you know or reasonably should know could lead to a person to take their own life you are now responsible. What if the facts were different? What the young man was still troubled, but she had been trying to end the relationship. And he threatened to take his own life if she left him, but she still did leave him. If he takes his own life then isn't she still legally culpable under this new standard. She new or should have known that he might take his life based on what she said, but she said it anyway. I hope the Massachusetts Supreme court fixes this travesty. But I don't know if they will, I think the case was challenged before at a preliminary stage of the criminal proceeding, I think challenging the finding of probable cause.
She new or should have known that he might take his life based on what she said, but she said it anyway.
But did she? Or did she, at some level, suspect he was just trying to get her attention?
Did she wonder if he was serious, or merely going through an elaborate routine to keep her on the phone, keep her communicating with him, and mess with her emotions?
Aussie Pundit said,
The trial judge ruled that the situation changed when the young man got out of the truck and the defendant told him to get back in. And the trial judge's ruling was quite careful:
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2017/06/16/michelle-carter-texting-suicide-trial-verdict-conrad-roy/
I wonder how the judge might have ruled had Carter instead texted, "Please get back into the truck" and then stopped texting.
Aussie Pundit said,
Did she wonder if he was serious, or merely going through an elaborate routine to keep her on the phone, keep her communicating with him, and mess with her emotions?
How would she even know, really, if he had indeed gotten back into the truck?
Trumpit said,
I love animals and hate (pretty much) humans, so I can't say I'm sorry he's dead."
Trumpit, please get back into the truck.
To MaxedOutMama,
What you write makes a lot of sense, if that is truly how MA law goes. Assuming the conviction is upheld, what do you think the grounds would be for an appeal to a Federal court?
Also makes me wonder how this might play out if the texting had occurred across state lines. Suppose Carter had been in MA and the victim in say, Rhode Island. Assuming Rhode Island law is not like MA law, would she still be culpable under MA law?
I suppose many laws and rulings have slippery-slope potential, but this case bothers me. If my "friend" threatens suicide, and I shrug my shoulders, might I become culpable if he carries out his threat?
If you were thinking of killing yourself and you knew someone who was mean to you would go to jail, would you be more or less likely to go through with it? Suicide is a selfish act and should be discouraged to the fullest. The more I see comments here discussing what should be done to this girl, the more I see what his fantasy must have been every time he threatened to kill himself—I’ll do it, and everyone will see how mean you were to me, and they’ll all hate you as much as I do. And some of you are falling for it; seeing events through this narcissist’s eyes.
How about we dig him up and send his corpse to prison?
When I was a kid and one of us pushed our mom over the brink having a foolish argument with her, she'd end it by saying, "Oh, go jump in the lake!" If one of us had done that and drowned, would she have been legally liable? TBH, I think there were times when she really meant it.
I don't know how MA defines involuntary manslaughter, but it seems to me there's an internal inconsistency in the charge in this case since the problem is that she very much meant for him to kill himself. It may or may not be manslaughter, but it is absolutely not involuntary.
What that tells me is that she did not break any laws, but the prosecutors are so determined to get her on something simply because she's a bad person that they are trying to shoehorn the facts into a law with a punishment they think fits.
Just call it what it is. If suicide is a murder of sorts - and on a few occasions Althouse has said she thinks it is - then this makes her an accessory. And this prosecution won't "open the door" to anything. Such prosecution was and will always remain rare because of how unusually reprehensible this Michelle Carter's actions were.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा