Guilty! Ground breaking verdict texting suicide

As was said:

Finn wrote:

In any case, the state of heartlessness is not illegal, nor are the acts of heartless people unless they violate a criminal statute.

I disagree with the verdict in this case and object to the idea that words are equivalent to actions. If I got to a point in my life where my continued existence no longer felt like an option I would welcome words of encouragement. It's not the business of the state to involve itself in such ultimately personal matters. Yes, I can see drawing a line at providing someone with the means to end his life but simply bucking up someone's courage and helping him to fulfill his last accomplishment shouldn't be considered a "crime". Slow down, might be a slippery slope ahead.

1 Reply

Quote:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/can-words-kill-people/2017/06/20/3e79f4ee-55f3-11e7-ba90-f5875b7d1876_story.html?utm_term=.7cd0052baf07&wpisrc=nl_opinions&wpmm=1

0 Replies

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/08/04/now-never-girl-gets-relatively-light-sentence/?utm_source=hadaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

"Light sentence" 2.5 years with 15 months mandatory, but she remains free while her appeal(s) is heard.

0 Replies

@hightor,

The situation wasn't as simple as words of encouragement, though. The suicide had expressed doubts about killing himself from weeks before, up until the day he killed himself. She goaded him to kill himself all that time up to the time he got out of his jerry-rigged gas chamber when he became scared, telling him to get back in. She coerced him into following through with killing himself when he had acted against it.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Coercion requires force or at least threats. Goading is not coercion.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Coercion can also involve psychological pressure. "The intimidation of a victim to compel the individual to do some act against his or her will by the use of psychological pressure, physical force, or threats." West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2

1 Reply

@roger,

Krumple wrote:

This verdict is dangerous. It means words are equal to actions. But they are far from it.

Selecting words to utter, and uttering them, are actions, for which people may be held accountable.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

The key word in this definition is "intimidation" There was no intimidation whether through the use of use of psychological pressure, physical force, or threats.

It is also highly questionable that he did anything against his will. If he had refused to return to the car what would she, could she have done?

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Intimidation, in the context of coercion, can also involve psychological threats, e.g. emotional blackmail.

Her coercion involved disapproval and rejection for vacillating and not going through with killing himself.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Intimidation, in the context of coercion, can also involve psychological threats, e.g. emotional blackmail.

Her coercion involved disapproval and rejection for vacillating and not going through with killing himself.

Disapproval and rejection hardly seem to be intimidating enough to get someone to kill themselves, but it doesn't really matter, for now, because the judge agreed with you. I predict this conviction will eventually be overturned, but maybe in the meantime we can get a lot more people we believe to be horrible human beings, based on what they say, thrown in jail. We can start with a few that frequent this forum.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

What have these horrible human beings on this forum said to coerce other people to kill themselves?

Or is it merely that they've hurt your feelings?

The two instances are not equatable.

1 Reply

The thing is for a stable individual her words would not have the same impact - for someone that is not mentally stable her words are devastating. I do think she deserves some sort of punishment - she seemed to be in a position to know what impact her words had on him and knowing him so well. Rather if she said it to me, I'd tell her to go screw.

The difficult part is proving this - difficult to prove what an impact and how deadly words can be to someone not stable.

Although I wouldn't want it - I could see this being overturned for that simply - how do you measure the impact of her words on someone. It is tough to quantify.

I would imagine the family will have better luck in their wrongful death suit - although I can't imagine they have much money especially after all the legal fees. But my guess is the family doesn't want the money so much as some sort of proof she is guilty of contributing to their son's death.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

You need to sharpen your sense of humor.

0 Replies

@Linkat,

Linkat wrote:

The thing is for a stable individual her words would not have the same impact - for someone that is not mentally stable her words are devastating. I do think she deserves some sort of punishment - she seemed to be in a position to know what impact her words had on him and knowing him so well. Rather if she said it to me, I'd tell her to go screw.

The difficult part is proving this - difficult to prove what an impact and how deadly words can be to someone not stable.

Although I wouldn't want it - I could see this being overturned for that simply - how do you measure the impact of her words on someone. It is tough to quantify.

I would imagine the family will have better luck in their wrongful death suit - although I can't imagine they have much money especially after all the legal fees. But my guess is the family doesn't want the money so much as some sort of proof she is guilty of contributing to their son's death.

She wasn't a very stable person herself and whether she was or not, she is not a trained psychologist who might have been able to judge his mental state. Remember, she thought his killing himself was a good thing. Their nihilistic view of life was what drew them together. Neither of them were the pictures of sound mental health.

It really doesn't matter though because he alone was responsible for his death. He got out of the car once and went back after she texted him from miles away. Nothing in the text was intimidating. She didn't threaten him with a fate worse than death if he didn't return. He didn't have to get back in the car.

Without the criminal conviction, there have been consequences to her actions which can easily be termed "punishment" She is reviled as a horrible person around the globe and by all accounts she feels tremendous regret for what she did. Combined they represent adequate punishment and if the wrongful death case is successful she may very well also be responsible for the financial ruination of her family, in addition to the extreme emotional distress she has caused them.

0 Replies

Here are Amanda Knox's thoughts about this case:
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-knox-michelle-carter-20170803-story.html

And a follow up:
http://www.westsideseattle.com/ballard-news-tribune/2017/08/05/amandas-view-more-michelle-carter

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Interesting take on the topic from someone who survived hell:

Knox wrote:

In our zeal to deflect blame, we insist on villainizing Carter because we want easy explanations, black-and-white reasons. We want to assign agency whenever something bad happens. But in so doing, we discredit Roy’s agency, which included his choice to get back inside his truck.

1 Reply

@hightor,

Knox wrote:

In our zeal to deflect blame, we insist on villainizing Carter because we want easy explanations, black-and-white reasons. We want to assign agency whenever something bad happens. But in so doing, we discredit Roy’s agency, which included his choice to get back inside his truck.

There were two agencies at work here, Roy's suicidal agency and Carter's coercive agency. Knox is, conversely, discrediting Carter's agency.

0 Replies

Guilty! Ground breaking verdict texting suicide

Quick Links

My Account

able2know