Woman found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in text/ suicide case

[UltraVires]

@Muffin

Where did the court read into the common law an element of physical presence?

snip. Physical presence is required for proximate causation of a death by the very definition of proximate causation. No matter how many times she texted him, the proximate cause of his death was his own decision to put the hose through the back window and remain in the car.

She may have encouraged him to commit the act which caused his death, but she did not cause it.

• I suppose we could think of remote triggers and things of that nature, but a killing requires a physical act to cause destruction or breakdown of heart and brain function (e.g. shooting, kicking, punching, stabbing, exploding, etc) which by its definition requires one to be physically present.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@UltraVires

• I suppose we could think of remote triggers and things of that nature, but a killing requires a physical act to cause destruction or breakdown of heart and brain function (e.g. shooting, kicking, punching, stabbing, exploding, etc) which by its definition requires one to be physically present.

If I put a big concrete brick in the middle of the highway and left and someone swerved to miss it, rolled over their car and died because of that am I not guilty of causing their death since I was not there?

[Broomstick]

Or, more gruesomely…

… because Timothy McVeigh was already leaving Oklahoma City when the truck bomb went off is he therefore innocent of killing 168 people with the bomb he built because he wasn’t nearby when said bomb exploded?

[UltraVires]

@Whack-a-Mole

If I put a big concrete brick in the middle of the highway and left and someone swerved to miss it, rolled over their car and died because of that am I not guilty of causing their death since I was not there?

@Broomstick

Or, more gruesomely…

… because Timothy McVeigh was already leaving Oklahoma City when the truck bomb went off is he therefore innocent of killing 168 people with the bomb he built because he wasn’t nearby when said bomb exploded?

If both cases the accused was “there.” And during that physical presence at the scene of the crime, an act (a physical act) was committed which proximately caused death.

[ThisIsTheEnd]

Involuntary manslaughter was a stretch. Harassment is more like it.

I hope it gets thrown out on appeal, it’s a terrible precedent. But I doubt it, the MA Supreme Court refused to throw it out earlier, saying “…the verbal conduct at issue was sufficient…” I don’t know if that put the thumb on the scale or not.

Bench trial doesn’t look like such a good idea in hindsight. The judge sounded like an angry snowplow driver.

[Slash1972]

@Whack-a-Mole

If I put a big concrete brick in the middle of the highway and left and someone swerved to miss it, rolled over their car and died because of that am I not guilty of causing their death since I was not there?

If I texted you telling you “There’s a big concrete brick in the middle of the highway, you should swerve to miss it” and then you did swerve to miss it, rolled over in your car and died because of that, am I guilty of causing your death?

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Slash1972

If I texted you telling you “There’s a big concrete brick in the middle of the highway, you should swerve to miss it” and then you did swerve to miss it, rolled over in your car and died because of that, am I guilty of causing your death?

That is not remotely the same thing so no.

And people here keep treating this like a single text or mere handful of text messages. It wasn’t. Conrad was clearly waffling about committing suicide and Carter pushed him at every turn to do it over a lengthy series of messages. Whenever Conrad waffled on whether to commit suicide or not Carter would cajole him to do it. With near certainty Carter could have talked him out of suicide. With near certainty Carter talked him in to committing suicide. She literally had the power of life or death over this boy and chose to push him over the edge.

Read the string of texts yourself (including texts Carter sent to her friends) and tell us if you come to a different conclusion: Michelle Carter Texts | PDF | Aggression | Professional Ethics

[Slash1972]

@Whack-a-Mole

That is not remotely the same thing so no.

And people here keep treating this like a single text or mere handful of text messages. It wasn’t. Conrad was clearly waffling about committing suicide and Carter pushed him at every turn to do it over a lengthy series of messages. Whenever Conrad waffled on whether to commit suicide or not Carter would cajole him to do it. With near certainty Carter could have talked him out of suicide. With near certainty Carter talked him in to committing suicide. She literally had the power of life or death over this boy and chose to push him over the edge.

Read the string of texts yourself (including texts Carter sent to her friends) and tell us if you come to a different conclusion: Michelle Carter Texts | PDF | Aggression | Professional Ethics

Yes, I read the texts. So what? He didn’t have to read them. Nothing forced him to listen to the texts. Nobody was there to threaten him. He read texts and killed himself. If you read texts that said “Avoid that brick in the road” and you swerved and got injured would your defense be “I didn’t want to swerve, but a person 1000 miles away texted me and told me to swerve, so I had to listen”? :rolleyes:

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Slash1972

Yes, I read the texts. So what? He didn’t have to read them. Nothing forced him to listen to the texts. Nobody was there to threaten him. He read texts and killed himself. If you read texts that said “Avoid that brick in the road” and you swerved and got injured would your defense be “I didn’t want to swerve, but a person 1000 miles away texted me and told me to swerve, so I had to listen”? :rolleyes:

You are treating this like there is no context here. That these were just some random texts that, for some reason, Conrad chose to listen to.

You ignore their relationship and that he was reaching out to her for advice. Of course he was going to listen to her.

There is a difference between me texting you and telling you to end yourself and someone you love and rely on saying the same thing.

You also ignore his mental state assuming Conrad should be like you who would never be swayed by such texts. Clearly Conrad had a more delicate psyche than you do. Conrad was on the fence and likely fishing for some sympathy when the person he loves continually pushes him to not wimp out and kill himself.

Carter clearly knew the possible result of her actions and kept at it anyway…and did so for a lengthy time (this was no spur of the moment bad decision but a concerted effort on her part to get him to kill himself).

[Slash1972]

@Whack-a-Mole

Conrad chose to listen to

This. He chose to listen. He didn’t HAVE to listen. He wasn’t forced. He chose to do it on his own.

[Trinopus]

@Slash1972

This. He chose to listen. He didn’t HAVE to listen. He wasn’t forced. He chose to do it on his own.

Do the rules change, though, because he was mentally ill? (Circular argument, as his suicide is the evidence I have for his being mentally ill… But take it as a general case…)

Some people are incompetent to make decisions. We don’t let children sign contracts, etc. Are the rules for taunting someone who is not competent different from the rules for taunting someone who is fully competent?

Personally, I’m all First Amendment here: we get to say horrid things to each other. But, again, are the rules different if the subject is not competent?

[Octarine]

@Trinopus

Do the rules change, though, because he was mentally ill? (Circular argument, as his suicide is the evidence I have for his being mentally ill… But take it as a general case…)

Some people are incompetent to make decisions. We don’t let children sign contracts, etc. Are the rules for taunting someone who is not competent different from the rules for taunting someone who is fully competent?

Personally, I’m all First Amendment here: we get to say horrid things to each other. But, again, are the rules different if the subject is not competent?

Do the rules change because she was mentally ill? Both of these teenagers seem pretty unbalanced to me.

[Typo_Negative]

@Whack-a-Mole

You are treating this like there is no context here. That these were just some random texts that, for some reason, Conrad chose to listen to.

You ignore their relationship and that he was reaching out to her for advice. Of course he was going to listen to her.

Carter and Roy met in Florida in 2012 while visiting relatives. Their relationship largely consisted of text messages and emails.

Bah. Utter nonsense, in my opinion. Conrad was a person with free will. She did not have some Svengali-like control over him. He chose to listen to her as he chose to ignore the other people in his life who were actually present. Why? Maybe it was because she said what he wanted to hear. This wasn’t his first attempt at suicide.

His death at such a young age is a tragedy. And she is a deeply disturbed person in her own right. But she was NOT responsible for his death. He was.

[SlackerInc]

Word.

[JoseB]

Serious question: Does the US law not consider “incitement to suicide” as a crime?

I ask because, feeling curious, I began checking the criminal codes of different countries, beginning with my own, Spain. These are my results so far…

Checking the Spanish criminal code, I see that Art. 143 explicitly mentions “incitement to suicide” and sets penalties:

[QUOTE=Spanish Criminal Code]

Artículo 143

1. El que induzca al suicidio de otro será castigado con la pena de prisión de cuatro a ocho años.

2. Se impondrá la pena de prisión de dos a cinco años al que coopere con actos necesarios al suicidio de una persona.

3. Será castigado con la pena de prisión de seis a diez años si la cooperación llegara hasta el punto de ejecutar la muerte.

4. El que causare o cooperare activamente con actos necesarios y directos a la muerte de otro, por la petición expresa, seria e inequívoca de éste, en el caso de que la víctima sufriera una enfermedad grave que conduciría necesariamente a su muerte, o que produjera graves padecimientos permanentes y difíciles de soportar, será castigado con la pena inferior en uno o dos grados a las señaladas en los números 2 y 3 de este artículo.

[/QUOTE]

Translation of the most relevant paragraph (paragraph 1) is the following:

“1. Whoever induces another person to commit suicide shall be punished with a prison term of between 4 and 8 years.”

In Spain, at least, that girl would definitely be sent to jail for a minimum of 4 years.

France has a similar proviso in their criminal code:

[QUOTE=French Criminal Code]

Article 223-13

Le fait de provoquer au suicide d’autrui est puni de trois ans d’emprisonnement et de 45000 euros d’amende lorsque la provocation a été suivie du suicide ou d’une tentative de suicide.

Les peines sont portées à cinq ans d’emprisonnement et à 75000 euros d’amende lorsque la victime de l’infraction définie à l’alinéa précédent est un mineur de quinze ans.

[/QUOTE]

It says: "Provoking another person to suicide is punished with 3 years of prison and a fine of €45,000 when the provocation leads to an actual suicide or a suicide attempt.

The penalties are increased to 5 years of prison and a fine of €75,000 when the victim of the offense defined in the previous paragraph is younger than 15 years of age."

So, in France, she would be sent to prison for 3 years, plus a €45,000 fine.

Russia, same situation:

[QUOTE=Russian Criminal Code]

Статья 110. Доведение до самоубийства

Доведение лица до самоубийства или до покушения на самоубийство путем угроз, жестокого обращения или систематического унижения человеческого достоинства потерпевшего -наказывается ограничением свободы на срок до трех лет, либо принудительными работами на срок до пяти лет, либо лишением свободы на тот же срок.
[/QUOTE]

Translation: “Inciting a person to commit or attempt to commit suicide by means of threats, cruel treatment or systematic denigration of their human dignity shall be punishable by restriction of freedom for up to 3 years, or by forced labor for up to 5 years, or by imprisonment for the same period.” (seems that there is some ambiguity regarding the exact penalties imposed, but I guess that it is to give some leeway to the judges to adjust the punishment taking into account the circumstances).

So, in Russia this girl might have ended up breaking stones for 5 years.

As to Japan, I see the following:

[QUOTE=Japanese Criminal Code]

（自殺関与及び同意殺人）

第二百二条

人を教唆し若しくは幇助して自殺させ、又は人をその嘱託を受け若しくはその承諾を得て殺した者は、六月以上七年以下の懲役又は禁錮に処する。

[/QUOTE]

(Inducing or Aiding Suicide; Homicide with Consent)

Article 202

A person who induces or aids another to commit suicide, or kills another at the other’s request or with other’s consent, shall be punished by imprisonment with or without work for not less than 6 months but not more than 7 years.

So, in Japan, she would be looking at something between 6 months and 7 years of jail.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

There are many other countries that have similar provisions in their criminal codes. So, my question, again, is - Is this not contemplated as a crime anywhere in the US? (I understand that each state will likely have their own criminal code and set of definitions). Looks somewhat peculiar to me. At least, when I was googling for all these things, I kept hitting criminal codes in many, many countries that penalized “goading somebody else into killing themselves”. It seems that, in fact, most countries in the world do so.

Interesting, then, that the US apparently does not.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@purplehearingaid

Michelle Carter found guilty of manslaughter in texting-suicide case - Boston News, Weather, Sports | WHDH 7News

I was surprise the judge came up with this verdict , but I do feel it was the right one . How do others feel about this ?

Wait, there is now a duty to rescue or attempt rescue?

I think that her proactive encouragement to commit suicide might be a crime but not rescuing has generally not been considered criminal conduct.

[Muffin]

@JoseB

Serious question: Does the US law not consider “incitement to suicide” as a crime?

I ask because, feeling curious, I began checking the criminal codes of different countries, beginning with my own, Spain. These are my results so far…

Add Canada to the list. Here as of 1972 suicide is not illegal, but counselling a person to die by suicide or aiding or abetting a person in dying by suicide is illegal, although there is a recent exemption for medically assisted suicide.

[SlackerInc]

In Canada and many other countries, judges can also forbid the media from reporting on a trial. That is unthinkable here. The kind of protection we have for free speech/expression in our Bill of Rights is rare. But I am a big fan of it; and as I pointed out upthread, I don’t believe this conviction could survive a challenge to the US Supreme Court, based on West Virginia v. Barnette, and probably other precedents as well.