• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Encouraging Suicide = Manslaughter. Agree or Disagree?

Encouraging Suicide = Manslaughter. Agree or Disagree?

  • Total voters
    46
Hard call! Both these teens sounded like they had mental health issues that went unchecked or at the very least not well monitored. We need better mental health support. Think of teens that enter suicide packs. Are they guilty of supporting each other in murder or just plain desperate for help? I choose the latter.
 
X Factor said:
Inspired by this;

Michelle Carter Found Guilty of Encouraging Boyfriend'''s Suicide With Text Messages - NBC News

Agree with the verdict?
Click to expand...

Other.

I can see how this verdict was reached, and I certainly agree with the thinking: she made no effort to stop him or call for help, so she let him die. And, that is involuntary manslaughter as defined by that particular statute in that state.

But, I do not agree with it being a crime to tell someone to kill themselves.
 
X Factor said:
Let me ask this, do you believe that the boy had the right to make the decision about when and how to end his life?
Click to expand...

Probably but it depends. I don't know enough about his reasons for killing himself. There are justifiable suicides and there are suicides that are, I would say, mistakes (for instance, suicides based on mistaken facts like the belief that he/she is a burden on his/her family - a very common belief among the suicidal). I am more open to intervention in these cases.

You seem to have this tendency to view every ethical dilemma through an absolutist lens. As if suicide is always right or always wrong. But I see morality being much more complex and twisting than that. I see morality as highly dependent on context (like the killing in self defense vs cold blood example from earlier). It's notoriously difficult to construct any simple moral law that applies in all conceivable circumstances. And because of this there is no option but to weigh these occurrences on a case by case basis.
 
Henrin said:
Coercion? What coercion? What force or threats did she use?
Click to expand...

If you'd prefer a different word, suit yourself; I have no interest in arguing semantics with you. My point is that she was not simply passively acceding to his decision; she was actively pressuring him to do it against his apparent will. And that this has ethical relevance.
 
the_recruit said:
If you'd prefer a different word, suit yourself; I have no interest in arguing semantics with you. My point is that she was not simply passively acceding to his decision; she was actively pressuring him to do it against his apparent will. And that this has ethical relevance.
Click to expand...

That's not even close to coercion. It's hardly semantics to point out that no action committed even comes close to coercive. He wanted to kill himself but was hesitating due to fear. All she ended up doing was pushing him to do what he wanted to do already.
 
Dittohead not! said:
No, I'm not. Why try to make up what I didn't say?

She has her right of free speech, of course. When what she says results in a death, then she's responsible.

If you yell "fire" in a crowded theater, and all that.
Click to expand...

She didn't cause a death. She had no part in causing the death. He killed himself. Try again.
 
Henrin said:
How did she cause the death then?
Click to expand...

Isn't it obvious?
By telling a suicidal young man to go ahead and do it. She could have, absolutely should have, tried to talk him out of it. At worst, she could simply have let him make his own decision, but no, she actively encouraged him to kill himself.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Isn't it obvious?
By telling a suicidal young man to go ahead and do it. She could have, absolutely should have, tried to talk him out of it. At worst, she could simply have let him make his own decision, but no, she actively encouraged him to kill himself.
Click to expand...

So encouraging someone to do something they want to do but are too scared to carry out is a crime in your book?
 
Henrin said:
So encouraging someone to do something they want to do but are too scared to carry out is a crime in your book?
Click to expand...
If it results in that person's death, it's a crime. It's called manslaughter. That's my conclusion, and the jury's conclusion.
 
Dittohead not! said:
If it results in that person's death, it's a crime. It's called manslaughter. That's my conclusion, and the jury's conclusion.
Click to expand...

You realize what the word manslaughter means, right? You actually have to kill them to be guilty of manslaughter.
 
Henrin said:
You realize what the word manslaughter means, right? You actually have to kill them to be guilty of manslaughter.
Click to expand...

You don't have to physically be present and kill someone. She killed him with her words. Saying that she's not guilty is tantamount to saying that a contract killing is not a murder, as the person hiring the killer didn't actually pull the trigger.
 
Henrin said:
You realize what the word manslaughter means, right? You actually have to kill them to be guilty of manslaughter.
Click to expand...

Would encouraging someone who is outrageously drunk, to drink more, and then giving them keys to a car be manslaughter?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Dittohead not! said:
You don't have to physically be present and kill someone. She killed him with her words. Saying that she's not guilty is tantamount to saying that a contract killing is not a murder, as the person hiring the killer didn't actually pull the trigger.
Click to expand...

Words can't kill, you know. Why must you apply abilities to words that they don't have? And comparing contract killing that was actually carried out to telling someone to kill themselves is just bizarre. Murder is a crime, so hiring someone to kill someone else is being an accessory to a crime. Suicide on the other hand is not a crime, so telling someone to kill themselves does not in any way make you an accessory to a crime.
 
the texts that she sent warrant some kind of legal consequences. manslaughter might get tossed out on appeal, though. technically, it probably counts as manslaughter, but i'm not sure that the verdict will hold up to a challenge. either way, the whole internet connected world pretty much agrees that this girl is a complete asshole, and that will follow her around forever. that seems like a pretty significant punishment in and of itself.
 
Aberration said:
Would encouraging someone who is outrageously drunk, to drink more, and then giving them keys to a car be manslaughter?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

No. In this case she was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter, which like it or not still calls for the person found guilty of the crime to do the killing.
 
Henrin said:
Words can't kill, you know. Why must you apply abilities to words that they don't have? And comparing contract killing that was actually carried out to telling someone to kill themselves is just bizarre. Murder is a crime, so hiring someone to kill someone else is being an accessory to a crime. Suicide on the other hand is not a crime, so telling someone to kill themselves does not in any way make you an accessory to a crime.
Click to expand...

The contract made with a hitman is just words. Many people have committed suicide as a result to harassment, just words. Words are more powerful than the sword.
 
Henrin said:
No. In this case she was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter, which like it or not still calls for the person found guilty of the crime to do the killing.
Click to expand...

No. It doesn't. It calls for the death to be a result of the others actions. Which is true here.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Henrin said:
No. In this case she was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter, which like it or not still calls for the person found guilty of the crime to do the killing.
Click to expand...

I tend to think that ideally we should not criminalize the spoken or written word.
 
Aberration said:
No. It doesn't. It calls for the death to be a result of the others actions. Which is true here.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Manslaughter- the unlawful killing of another person without premeditation or so-called "malice aforethought" (an evil intent prior to the killing). It is distinguished from murder (which brings greater penalties) by lack of any prior intention to kill anyone or create a deadly situation.

The claim that she is guilty of manslaughter is ludicrous since she obviously did not kill anyone.
 
Henrin said:
Manslaughter- the unlawful killing of another person without premeditation or so-called "malice aforethought" (an evil intent prior to the killing). It is distinguished from murder (which brings greater penalties) by lack of any prior intention to kill anyone or create a deadly situation.

The claim that she is guilty of manslaughter is ludicrous since she obviously did not kill anyone.
Click to expand...

Her actions led to a death. She did kill someone.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Aberration said:
Her actions led to a death. She did kill someone.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Argh. No, in suicide the victim and the perpetrator are the same person.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom