# Suicide by Text girl convicted. **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [June 17, 2017, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suicide-by-text-girl-convicted/789166 "2017-06-17T05:14:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Ale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@Ale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ale)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2019, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suicide-by-text-girl-convicted/789166/221 "2019-02-12T04:46:25Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > If someone remains with a physically abusive spouse when they were physically capable of leaving the house does that relieve the abuser of responsibility? There are mental states where people actually can NOT stop abuse or harassment. The law recognizes that even if someone _could_ have left an abusive scenario and did not the abuser is still guilty of abuse. > > I agree, this is an extreme case and an outlier, but we might see it’s like again in the future with the on-going popularity of social media and texting. It’s not an extreme case, an extreme case would be the mass suicide in Jamestown by the followers of Jim Jones. The scale is different but exploiting psychological vulnerabilities in people to drive them into self harm is nothing new or unusual. I am sure individuals being brought to the point of suicide by manipulative partners (deliberately or not) is a daily occurrence. ---
**Author:** ![PastTense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pasttense/32/14550_2.png) [@PastTense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PastTense)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2019, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suicide-by-text-girl-convicted/789166/222 "2019-04-10T15:57:26Z")
> [@](#): > > The $4.2 million wrongful death lawsuit filed against texting suicide defendant Michelle Carter has been “resolved”, an attorney for the victim’s mother said Wednesday. > **[Wrongful death suit against texting suicide defendant Michelle Carter...](https://www.masslive.com/news/2019/04/wrongful-death-suit-against-texting-suicide-defendant-michelle-carter-resolved-attorney-for-victims-mother-says.html)** > > Lynn Roy, the mother of Conrad Roy, filed a $4.2 million lawsuit against Carter in 2017. Anyone see any information on how it was resolved? ---
**Author:** ![Joey\_P](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/919ad9/32.png) [@Joey\_P](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joey_P)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2019, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suicide-by-text-girl-convicted/789166/223 "2019-04-10T16:19:06Z")
It was dismissed “with prejudice and without costs”. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2019, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suicide-by-text-girl-convicted/789166/224 "2019-04-10T16:45:28Z")
Well, at least she’s not saddled with that debt hanging over her. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2019, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suicide-by-text-girl-convicted/789166/225 "2019-04-10T21:23:55Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > If you feed someone something with, say, shellfish not knowing they’re allergic to shellfish and they die… arguably that’s an accident because you _didn’t know_ that would be a problem. If, however, you _know_ the person has a shellfish allergy and you deliberately feed them something with shellfish that is _murder_. > > That’s the distinction here - Horrible Girlfriend KNEW this guy was mentally ill and had attempted suicide in the past, she knew he was suggestible. She took advantage of that and it wound up killing him. > Yes, potentially a crime - again, read the link to Jackson Costko who is potentially facing _twenty years in prison_. > > If publishing someone’s information on the internet leads to a risk to their safety or personal harm to them, and you knew before you published that information that you were putting that person at risk YES that’s potentially a crime. > > Frankly, I don’t understand why you are having such difficulty understanding these concepts. Two points: 1. What you describe regarding her telling him to get back in the truck is not a difference in kind but one of degree in advocating suicide. I don’t know where you draw the line between her conduct and the conduct of suicide advocacy groups that publish books, pamphlets, and have websites and blogs dedicated to the idea that if you want to off yourself, you should be allowed to do it. Can you advocate for suicide so long as you aren’t very successful at doing so? If one person dies because of your advocacy are you guilty of murder? If X number? Or is it the fact that this was a direct one on one conversation? Can a person only advocate for suicide in a general sense, but not to one person where it might have an effect? This would be highly unusual for a free speech doctrine. Further, this is not like slipping shellfish into someone’s food. This guy made the choice himself. She didn’t push him into the truck. His survival was entirely in his own hands. He was free to disregard her urgings and not commit suicide. That fact makes the proximate cause aspect very troubling. 1. Jackson Costko was charged with illegally accessing a computer database to get that information. That is leagues different that simply telling someone information I already have. Where is the line drawn for that? If someone stops at my house and asks where John Smith lives, and the person tells me that she is a friend of his, should I go to jail for saying, “Third house down on the right. The one with the green shutters.”? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2019, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suicide-by-text-girl-convicted/789166/226 "2019-04-10T21:25:22Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Well, at least she’s not saddled with that debt hanging over her. Not necessarily. I’m not sure about Massachusetts, but in West Virginia, a conviction of a criminal offense automatically means that you must make restitution to your victim and the civil suit becomes unnecessary. Perhaps that is what happened here. ---
**Author:** ![echoreply](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/echoreply/32/3641_2.png) [@echoreply](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/echoreply)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2019, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suicide-by-text-girl-convicted/789166/227 "2019-04-10T21:39:39Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Or is it the fact that this was a direct one on one conversation? Can a person only advocate for suicide in a general sense, but not to one person where it might have an effect? > > This would be highly unusual for a free speech doctrine. Direct instructions can fall into one of the acknowledged [first amendment exceptions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions): incitement to violence. There is a great big difference between the almost certainly legal publishing of instructions to make a weapon, and taking those instructions, handing them to you, UltraVires, and saying, “build this and use it on that person over there.” ---
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2019, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suicide-by-text-girl-convicted/789166/228 "2019-04-10T21:44:08Z")
This case was always a better candidate for a civil trial instead of criminal. Prosecution for text messages that repeatedly urged someone to kill themselves is new legal ground. That’s why it went all the way to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. Seems unlikely that Michelle Carter won’t pay some restitution to the family. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2019, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suicide-by-text-girl-convicted/789166/229 "2019-04-10T21:47:32Z")
> [@echoreply](#): > > Direct instructions can fall into one of the acknowledged [first amendment exceptions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions): incitement to violence. There is a great big difference between the almost certainly legal publishing of instructions to make a weapon, and taking those instructions, handing them to you, UltraVires, and saying, “build this and use it on that person over there.” I don’t think that the analogy holds. In the first case, the person is giving instruction on how to build a weapon. The second case, the person is advocating the use of the weapon. In my example, the suicide advocacy groups are flat out saying that if you want to end your own life, that is/should be your right to do so. It is certainly foreseeable, and has likely happened many times, that a person on the edge has read that material and decided to complete suicide because of it. IOW, in my example the advocacy is a direct advocacy of the harm the government seeks to prevent. In your example, it is one step removed. I could use that weapon you showed me how to build for personal protection or target shooting. When you tell me to use it on a person, that crosses the line. There is no otherwise proper advocacy of suicide. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2019, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suicide-by-text-girl-convicted/789166/230 "2019-04-10T21:56:26Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > But the question of whether suicide can be warranted (unlike, say, whether cold-blooded murder of an innocent person can be justified) is an open question in philosophy, as this entry from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy illustrates: [Albert Camus (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/camus/#SuiResAbs) > > So in effect, you are implicitly arguing that only one position on this question can be legally allowed; or that if one holds the unpopular pro-suicide position, they had better be careful about admitting to it or at the very least not try to be too emphatic or persuasive about it. > > As with most questions of free speech, the wise counsel of John Stuart Mill is applicable here: > > > [@](#): > > > > First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility. > > > > Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied. > > > > Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds. And not only this, but, fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience. > > > > Before quitting the subject of freedom of opinion, it is fit to take some notice of those who say, that the free expression of all opinions should be permitted, on condition that the manner be temperate, and do not pass the bounds of fair discussion. Much might be said on the impossibility of fixing where these supposed bound are to be placed; for if the test be offence to those whose opinion is attacked, I think experience testifies that this offence is given whenever the attack is telling and powerful, and that every opponent who pushes them hard, and whom they find it difficult to answer, appears to them, if he shows any strong feeling on the subject, an intemperate opponent.First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility. > > > > Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied. > > > > Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds. And not only this, but, fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience. > > > > Before quitting the subject of freedom of opinion, it is fit to take some notice of those who say, that the free expression of all opinions should be permitted, on condition that the manner be temperate, and do not pass the bounds of fair discussion. Much might be said on the impossibility of fixing where these supposed bound are to be placed; for if the test be offence to those whose opinion is attacked, I think experience testifies that this offence is given whenever the attack is telling and powerful, and that every opponent who pushes them hard, and whom they find it difficult to answer, appears to them, if he shows any strong feeling on the subject, an intemperate opponent. One is compelled to wonder how (the Hon.) Mr. Mill would approach this question in the instance where the opinion in controversy is _“I passionately advocate that the interests of [the person contemplating suicide] would be best served by the cessation of [that person’s] existence.”_ ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2019, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suicide-by-text-girl-convicted/789166/231 "2019-04-10T21:59:41Z")
> [@aceplace57](#): > > This case was always a better candidate for a civil trial instead of criminal. > > Prosecution for text messages that repeatedly urged someone to kill themselves is new legal ground. That’s why it went all the way to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. > > Seems unlikely that Michelle Carter won’t pay some restitution to the family. I think it is a weaker civil case than it was a criminal case. She was not the proximate cause of his injury therefore she is not liable. The kid was the proximate cause of his own injuries as he had the opportunity to avoid all harm by simply not rigging his vehicle with CO poison and not sitting in it after knowing he rigged it. It is an intentional act which almost always served to break any chain in causation. ---
**Author:** ![nelliebly](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nelliebly/32/5422_2.png) [@nelliebly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nelliebly)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2019, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suicide-by-text-girl-convicted/789166/232 "2019-04-11T00:24:24Z")
I read the entire decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Court, and it addresses the First Amendment objections voiced by some here. I very much doubt SCOTUS would rule differently, should they even take the case. Before I get to that, though, let me caution against the assumption that the young victim in this case can be understood merely by imagining our presumably healthy selves into his situation. We can’t even understand by imagining our [formerly, I hope] depressed selves into his situation. This was someone who’d been overwhelmed by depression and anxiety for a very long time. It’s obvious from reading about the case and the texting transcripts that his ability to make autonomous decisions and withstand manipulation was limited. Here are relevant excerpts from [the decision](https://www.scribd.com/document/399050026/Commonwealth-vs-Michelle-Carter#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=126006X1587340X9edfa38a062f77046584d89718b9b355&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate). Emphasis is mine. > [@](#): > > The crime of involuntary manslaughter proscribes reckless or wanton conduct causing the death of another…The defendant cannot escape liability just because she happened to use “words to carry out [her] illegal [act].” Id. at 309, quoting United States v. Barnett, 24 667 F.2d 835, 842 (9th Cir. 1982). See Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U.S. 490, 502 (1949) (upholding conviction for speech used as “essential and inseparable part” of crime) \ > [@](#): > > **Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has held that “speech or writing used as an integral part of conduct in violation of a valid criminal statute” is not protected by the First Amendment.** Giboney, 336 U.S. at 498. Accord United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460, 468-469 (2010). See Commonwealth v. Chou, 433 Mass. 229, 236 (2001) (“true threats” lack First Amendment protection because “purpose is to cause injury rather than to add to, or to comment on, the public discourse”). > [@](#): > > Thus, there is nothing in the prosecution or conviction of the defendant in the instant case, or the prior involuntary > 27 manslaughter cases in the Commonwealth involving verbal criminal conduct, to suggest that the First Amendment has been violated in any way. The only verbal conduct punished as involuntary manslaughter has been the wanton or reckless pressuring of a vulnerable person to commit suicide, overpowering that person’s will to live and resulting in that person’s death. We are therefore not punishing words alone, as the defendant claims, but reckless or wanton words causing death. The speech at issue is thus integral to a course of criminal conduct and thus does not raise any constitutional problem. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2019, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suicide-by-text-girl-convicted/789166/233 "2019-04-11T00:49:12Z")
> [@nelliebly](#): > > I read the entire decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Court, and it addresses the First Amendment objections voiced by some here. I very much doubt SCOTUS would rule differently, should they even take the case. Before I get to that, though, let me caution against the assumption that the young victim in this case can be understood merely by imagining our presumably healthy selves into his situation. We can’t even understand by imagining our [formerly, I hope] depressed selves into his situation. This was someone who’d been overwhelmed by depression and anxiety for a very long time. It’s obvious from reading about the case and the texting transcripts that his ability to make autonomous decisions and withstand manipulation was limited. > > Here are relevant excerpts from [the decision](https://www.scribd.com/document/399050026/Commonwealth-vs-Michelle-Carter#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=126006X1587340X9edfa38a062f77046584d89718b9b355&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate). Emphasis is mine. > \ I read the decision as well and it is filled with question begging. It simply assumes that her words caused the death while failing to address hundreds of years of common law precedent regarding causation. And, again, respectfully, you do the same by describing the decedent with words that would make him seem to be a child or a ward of the state. Of course he had some depression issues, or else he wouldn’t have considered suicide in the first place. That has serious issues for freedom of speech in that suicide advocacy groups would logically fall under this umbrella. I could agree or disagree with their arguments and not commit suicide because I don’t have the desire to commit suicide. But if these groups must constrain their message so as not to influence the single person most likely to be influenced by their speech, then they might as well not speak at all. And this “suicide as a crime” horseshit is just that. It is not in the statute, but a common law crime. Obviously nobody has ever been prosecuted for committing suicide, and I’ll bet nobody has ever been prosecuted for attempted suicide. It goes against modern reason and logic to prosecute it and the Legislature has not seen fit to codify it as a crime. If the Court is going to dust off and confirm these crimes, it is hard to see why they should not allow a prosecution for being a common scold, or adultery, or fornication. And how far does it go? If a family member is diagnosed with a terminal illness and I advise them to forego chemotherapy, am I guilty of this crime? Oh, it’s different, you say? I don’t see that distinction made in any principled way in the opinion. ---
**Author:** ![nelliebly](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nelliebly/32/5422_2.png) [@nelliebly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nelliebly)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2019, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suicide-by-text-girl-convicted/789166/234 "2019-04-11T03:17:38Z")
> [@](#): > > And, again, respectfully, you do the same by describing the decedent with words that would make him seem to be a child or a ward of the state. Of course he had some depression issues, or else he wouldn’t have considered suicide in the first place. Perhaps you equate the very real effects of anxiety with childishness, but that’s not the way it works. Let me put it succinctly. Anxiety has been shown to cause chemical changes that affect the neurons in the prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain that enables you to make decisions. A highly intelligent, very mature individual with severe anxiety may well be unable to make decisions because the part of the brain that allows him to do that has been affected. Do you get it now? > [@](#): > > That has serious issues for freedom of speech in that suicide advocacy groups would logically fall under this umbrella. I could agree or disagree with their arguments and not commit suicide because I don’t have the desire to commit suicide. But if these groups must constrain their message so as not to influence the single person most likely to be influenced by their speech, then they might as well not speak at all. If you read the decision, you must have scanned it very quickly to have missed the section dealing with this. Here’s part of it. > [@](#): > > As we explained in Carter I, 474 Mass. at 636, and reemphasize today, this case does not involve the prosecution of end-of-life discussions between a doctor, family member, or friend and a mature, terminally ill adult confronting the difficult personal choices that must be made when faced with the certain physical and mental suffering brought upon by impending death. Nor does it involve prosecutions of general discussions about euthanasia or suicide targeting the ideas themselves. See Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 414 (1989) (“If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable”). Nothing in Carter I, our decision today, or our earlier involuntary manslaughter cases involving verbal conduct suggests that involuntary manslaughter prosecutions could be brought in these very different contexts without raising important First Amendment concerns I really do urge you to read the decision again. Perhaps if you reread the decision, you could quote specific passages where the court “begs the question.” Either way, it’s well worth a second or even a third read, I think. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2019, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suicide-by-text-girl-convicted/789166/235 "2019-04-11T04:35:52Z")
Everything Ultravires said, except that I wish they would not use the archaic and hurtful terminology “commit suicide”. If he had been legally classified as a vulnerable adult, had some other party as his legal guardian, it would be a wholly different matter. You can argue that he should have been so classified. But he was not. Maybe that failure to get him declared incompetent to manage his own affairs means his parents were the true killers. > [@nelliebly](#): > > A highly intelligent, very mature individual with severe anxiety may well be unable to make decisions because the part of the brain that allows him to do that has been affected. > > Do you get it now? Do you get that this is true for every decision anyone makes that we consider “bad” or harmful in some way? Libertarian free will does not exist; therefore, any harmful or foolish decision anyone makes is because there is “something wrong with their brain”. > [@nelliebly](#): > > If you read the decision, you must have scanned it very quickly to have missed the section dealing with this. Here’s part of it. But that doesn’t “deal with it” except in the most superficial way. All it really says is “but this doesn’t apply to difficult end-of-life decisions”. There is no actual logic there to explain why it would apply to one but not the other, except for the implicit appeal to the majority: one kind of advocacy would horrify most people, and the other would only probably horrify a minority of people (like strict Catholics). And they had just pointed out that “the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable”. So where is the actual argument? I don’t see one. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2019, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suicide-by-text-girl-convicted/789166/236 "2019-04-11T05:39:43Z")
> [@aceplace57](#): > > Seems unlikely that Michelle Carter won’t pay some restitution to the family. The case being “resolved” means they stopped the suit. One way this happens is if they’ve already agreed on a monetary settlement without involving the courts. She may have already paid–or at least agreed to do so. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2019, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suicide-by-text-girl-convicted/789166/237 "2019-04-11T06:37:29Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Everything Ultravires said, except that I wish they would not use the archaic and hurtful terminology “commit suicide”. > > If he had been legally classified as a vulnerable adult, had some other party as his legal guardian, it would be a wholly different matter. You can argue that he should have been so classified. But he was not. Maybe that failure to get him declared incompetent to manage his own affairs means his parents were the true killers. There is no such legal classification. It is simply an acknowledgement of his diagnosis making him vulnerable. He was diagnosed with severe clinical depression, a mental disorder, and had progressed to the point of being suicidally depressed. Such an individual is inherently in a vulnerable position to those who would try to get them to kill themselves. > [@](#): > > Do you get that this is true for every decision anyone makes that we consider “bad” or harmful in some way? Libertarian free will does not exist; therefore, any harmful or foolish decision anyone makes is because there is “something wrong with their brain”. This is not remotely true. Some mental states are diseased, and some are not. We have an entire science devoted to determining the difference. Depression is a real thing, and it causes a disordered form of thinking. The person feels bad about themselves despite there being no reason to feel such. The person has false view of the world around them. They have an inability to feel emotions. And they experience extreme mental anguish that leads them to consider suicide, and some to actually attempt it. We know from the interaction with her that, when push came to shove, he decided he didn’t want to kill himself after all. But she coerced him into doing it anyways. We know that the guy did not want to die. But she took advantage of his diseased state and coerced him into ending his life. > [@](#): > > But that doesn’t “deal with it” except in the most superficial way. All it really says is “but this doesn’t apply to difficult end-of-life decisions”. There is no actual logic there to explain why it would apply to one but not the other, except for the implicit appeal to the majority: one kind of advocacy would horrify most people, and the other would only probably horrify a minority of people (like strict Catholics). And they had just pointed out that “the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable”. So where is the actual argument? I don’t see one. There’s nothing superficial about it at all. It makes a claim, and then cites the case law that establishes that claim.\* Carter I\*, 474 Mass. at 636 is the law.\* Texas v. Johnson\*, 491 U.S. 397, 414 (1989) is the law. There are already laws that keep what **UltraVires** claims from being a problem. This is a narrow tailored decision. The decision is limited to cases where some actively uses their words to cause a mentally ill individual to commit harm upon their person involuntarily. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2019, 8:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suicide-by-text-girl-convicted/789166/238 "2019-04-11T08:23:35Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Everything Ultravires said, except that I wish they would not use the archaic and hurtful terminology “commit suicide”. I’m not sure what other terminology one is supposed to use these days - please, do enlighten the rest of us. It’s an inherently hurtful situation - first, the person killing themselves (is that also hurtful terminology? What do you do when an accurate description of an event is hurtful?) then the on-going pain in the survivors. I’m not sure there’s any way to refer to it that doesn’t cause hurt. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2019, 8:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suicide-by-text-girl-convicted/789166/239 "2019-04-11T08:47:15Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > There is no such legal classification. ORLY? > **[Vulnerable Adult | DSHS](https://www.dshs.wa.gov/altsa/home-and-community-services/vulnerable-adult)** > > The law defines ‘vulnerable adult’ as (RCW 74.34.020 ): A person 60 years of age or older who has the functional, mental, or physical inability to care for themselves; or An adult who: Is subject to a guardianship under RCW 11.130.265 or subject to... > [@](#): > > The law defines ‘vulnerable adult’ as (RCW 74.34.020;RCW 74.34.021): > [snip] > DSHS can investigate only situations of abuse, abandonment, neglect, self-neglect, or financial exploitation that involve an alleged victim who meets the definition of ‘vulnerable adult’ in the law. :dubious: BTW, what is your evidence that this guy had no reason to feel bad about himself? > [@BigT](#): > > They have an inability to feel emotions. And they experience extreme mental anguish So they cannot feel emotions…but they “experience extreme mental anguish”? 😕 Ok then. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2019, 8:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suicide-by-text-girl-convicted/789166/240 "2019-04-11T08:54:09Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > I’m not sure what other terminology one is supposed to use these days - please, do enlighten the rest of us. Gladly. [https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/06/09/health/suicide-language-words-matter/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F](https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/06/09/health/suicide-language-words-matter/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F) > [@](#): > > Top of mind to many who care about this topic is getting rid of the phrase “committed suicide”…”It implies sin or crime" – we “commit” sins and crimes – "and pathologizes those affected. We suggest more objective phrasing, like ‘died by/from suicide,’ ‘ended their life’ or 'took their life’”…A similar guideline actually has become the rule of thumb for major news organizations [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suicide-by-text-girl-convicted/789166.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suicide-by-text-girl-convicted/789166.md?page=13)