Michelle Carter sentenced for texts urging suicide of Conrad Roy

Deuce said:

I'm suggesting your argument applies to Manson's case. He never killed anyone. What crime did he commit, in your opinion?

The cult is irrelevant. We're discussing a particular crime.

Click to expand...

IMO his crime was conspiracy to commit murder. It was his idea and his plan.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

JasperL said:

OK, I'm not sure what argument you're making now. Of course he could have blocked her, but she was a TRUSTED FRIEND - that's what makes her actions so abhorrent.

As to blame, it's entirely possible that like many things in life, the question isn't a black and white one. There is an option other than, does the fault lie 0.00% with the friend or 100.0% with her? Obviously the person who committed suicide bears the vast majority of the blame, and the short sentence reflects that, but I don't agree her share is appropriately as you suggest 0.00%.

Click to expand...

Would it change your opinion if it turned out that she encouraged him because she thought he was so miserable that ending his life was the compassionate thing to do?

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

trouble13 said:

Would it change your opinion if it turned out that she encouraged him because she thought he was so miserable that ending his life was the compassionate thing to do?

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

No, because someone suicidal is mentally ill, and at least many mentally ill people, especially those at this man's young age, get better, live fulfilling lives. And I don't believe someone like this woman is qualified to make a decision like that - 'You are better off dead, so I'll help you kill yourself!'

JasperL said:

No, because someone suicidal is mentally ill, and at least many mentally ill people, especially those at this man's young age, get better, live fulfilling lives. And I don't believe someone like this woman is qualified to make a decision like that - 'You are better off dead, so I'll help you kill yourself!'

Click to expand...

Sure he was mentally ill and from the sounds of it, he was in a great deal of pain. Its his choice if he wants to work through that pain or not. I dont know her motivation for what she said but it is possible she thought that being harsh with him was the compassionate thing to do. She also may not of had any clue that what she was doing could be a crime. Unless you can show that she intenitionally caused his death against his will I dont think its correct to convict her. I do however concede that reading the criteria for involuntary manslaughter she does meet the requirements and I can understand how a judge or jury would find her guilty.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

Deuce said:

I'm suggesting your argument applies to Manson's case. He never killed anyone. What crime did he commit, in your opinion?

The cult is irrelevant. We're discussing a particular crime.

Click to expand...

What crime are we discussing? Is suicide a crime?

I don't want to get deep into the Manson "murders" but you do realize, I hope, that murder actually is a crime and that Manson was intimately involved in the selection of the victims and while you may consider the cult irrelevant, the cult was the basis of the motive for the murders. This young lady didn't counsel the young man to commit any crime nor, to my knowledge, has a motive for the "crime" been established or that I've heard of.

Again, your analogy is nonsense.

JasperL said:

The difference between you and this person is you're not mentally ill, and the law IMO correctly evaluates a person's mental capacity in many other settings, starting with the presumption that minors cannot be bound by contracts in most circumstances, appointment of guardians, and more.

And I don't really understand the distinctions you make above. If he's completely responsible for his own acts, and society has no business inquiring about his mental capacity, which is what you argue, then why do you support the family's ability to bankrupt her in civil court? Or support her being held criminally responsible if, for example, he decided to kill himself by running into a truck, that also killed the truck driver. Either she is or is not partially responsible. If she is, that's fine, but I don't see how you can carve out this case (no criminal liability) but then assign blame to her if he chose another way to kill himself that also happened to harm others.

Click to expand...

Firstly, I said I was fine with her being subjected to civil action - I never stated she should be bankrupted in civil court since I'm not sure, if I were a juror, I'd assign blame to her for the young man's death over and above the blame I'd assign to that same family's obvious appearance of neglecting their "mentally incapacitated" family member and subjecting him to the mortal influences of an outside individual. According to your logic, if this young man had spent his life being degraded and mentally abused by his parents as worthless or whatever, the parents should be criminally tried for his murder should he commit suicide. Likewise, if he was attending university with an eye to becoming a doctor and his guidance counsellor told him he should take a new career path and he was so distraught he killed himself that counsellor should be tried for murder.

Secondly, I posited the possibility of her being liable for any additional deaths or injuries that may occur in the course of his killing himself because that could potentially be seen as reckless endangerment or negligent homicide/manslaughter as being actions that indirectly or directly led to the death or deaths of innocent individuals. Assisting an individual commit his own suicide, a suicide he appears to have wanted for a significant period of time, seems to me to have no victim.

CanadaJohn said:

Firstly, I said I was fine with her being subjected to civil action - I never stated she should be bankrupted in civil court since I'm not sure, if I were a juror, I'd assign blame to her for the young man's death over and above the blame I'd assign to that same family's obvious appearance of neglecting their "mentally incapacitated" family member and subjecting him to the mortal influences of an outside individual.

Click to expand...

You're avoiding the issue by moving the goal posts. You said he's responsible AND that the girl should be subject to civil action. You're wanting it both ways.

According to your logic, if this young man had spent his life being degraded and mentally abused by his parents as worthless or whatever, the parents should be criminally tried for his murder should he commit suicide. Likewise, if he was attending university with an eye to becoming a doctor and his guidance counsellor told him he should take a new career path and he was so distraught he killed himself that counsellor should be tried for murder.

Click to expand...

No, that's not my logic at all. I'm assigning blame to her because she, over a period of months, including while he was in the middle of the act itself, encouraged him to kill himself, even demanding he get back in the car and finish the job. The acts you describe above are nothing like that. I don't know why you won't address the actual facts of the case versus making up situations that did NOT happen.

Secondly, I posited the possibility of her being liable for any additional deaths or injuries that may occur in the course of his killing himself because that could potentially be seen as reckless endangerment or negligent homicide/manslaughter as being actions that indirectly or directly led to the death or deaths of innocent individuals. Assisting an individual commit his own suicide, a suicide he appears to have wanted for a significant period of time, seems to me to have no victim.

Click to expand...

Right, but you're at least partially blaming her in one situation, and suggesting she could be criminally liable for acts only he committed and therefore asserting that the suicide WAS at least in part due to her texts and phone calls. But in another, asserting that he's the only one responsible for his own acts. Again, you want it both ways.