I agree with you. And, as far as I can tell, so does the judge.
And, as far as I can tell, the law there is that involuntary manslaughter involves a death that was unintentionally caused as a result of the defendant’s conduct.
Adultery isn’t a crime; killing someone is.
Both a prosecutor and a judge has determined her actions met the standard for illegal conduct. This alone doesn’t mean alternate opinions are worthless, but I don’t get the hand wringing over this by non-legal experts. I’m not seeing evidence of injustice in how this case has been decided at all.
Care to entertain the hypothetical I posed earlier? I would expect to be prosecuted for helping a drunk friend drive. Wouldn’t you? Do you see how egging on a suicidal person is similar?
But the defendant didn’t do it. The victim did it.
My vote is that this is a miscarriage of justice and an infringement of speech.
Very, very bad speech, but that’s the cost of freedom. Nazis get to publish newsletters, and dipshits get to tell depressed people to jump off a bridge.
Being permitted to kill people by convincing them to do something that causes their death is not the cost of freedom. You are sorely mistaken if you think that you can always say whatever you want. The law does not work that way.
Go back to my child hypothetical. It’s relatively easy to talk a child into doing something that will cause the child to die. Encourage them to run into traffic, jump into a cold river, drink a poison . . . . Being able to cause suicides and causing deaths by mishap with impunity is not the cost of freedom. Freedom is being able to live, including a child being able to live, or an adult of diminished capacity being able to live, rather than be killed by a sicco, be that sicco using a gun, or a third party, or simply words. Yes, words kill. Carter killed her boyfriend with her words, and has been convicted for it.
Surely you recognize that there are limits on gun ownership. Well there are limits on speech as well, such as prohibitions on shouting fire in a theater, and in the matter at hand, talking a disturbed person into killing himself. Your freedom of speech is not absolute, and waving the flag of “FREEDOM” is no more than a groundless desire to justify the unjustifiable. Your freedom of speech ends when it is used to directly persuade a person in crisis to kill himself, or to persuade a child to die by playing in traffic or any number of Addamsesque deaths.
Okay, suppose someone sees a curious five-year old child picking up a bottle of toxic solvent or oil. And he says “Go ahead, drink it.” And then the child proceeds to drink the toxin, and he gets sick and dies. Are you saying that there’s no criminal liability here? Any reasonable person would know that the words in this case – just the words alone – are putting the child in mortal danger. You can argue the child killed himself but I doubt a court would see it that way.
This case may not involve a child but it nevertheless involves someone with clearly diminished capacity to make healthy adult choices, and we have someone is knowingly communicating with that person in such a way that may cause that person to harm himself. The circumstances are indeed rare but its certainly reasonable to conclude that the defendant’s communication with the victim factored significantly in his death.
Looks like you already beat me to it
This decision is nothing new. The highest level of appeal court in Massachusetts made a similar decision fifty-six years ago. Have a read through ILARIO PERSAMPIERI vs. COMMONWEALTH, 343 Mass. 19, May 1, 1961 - June 13, 1961, Suffolk County, present Present: WILKINS, C. J., SPALDING, WILLIAMS, WHITTEMORE, CUTTER, KIRK, & SPIEGEL, JJ. PERSAMPIERI vs. COMMONWEALTH, 343 Mass. 19
A fellow beat the shit out of his wife, handed her a rifle and a bullet, and told her to shoot herself, so she did. He was convicted of involuntary manslaughter.
I hope that if there is a hell, someone like her would be eligible. However, under our law, she is not guilty of an offense, for two reasons:
- There was no “killing”. At the end of the day, she may have encouraged it, but the fatal act was committed by the decedent himself.
Think of it this way: If she pointed a gun at my head, and pulled the trigger, and had done the same with the boy, we would both be just as dead. Had she sent me the same messages that she sent the boy, I would not have committed suicide.
So, the difference is the young man’s choice to end his own life. Which leads to #2
- Her actions were not the proximate cause of the young man’s death
Just like the old law school hypothetical about a serial killer in a hospital waiting room, this young man’s own knowing and volitional act was a supervening cause, that until this case, acted to foreclose any criminal or civil liability for his death. Again, she could have texted me the identical words she texted him, and I would have said, “Bitch, you crazy.”
I also fear the slippery slope. What if a man has an organization that advocates for the right of adults to commit suicide? Suppose he gives speeches and passes out literature. Suppose, further, that it can be shown that John Doe would not have committed suicide but for the persuasion given by the speeches and literature. Is that man guilty of involuntary manslaughter in Massachusetts?
We employ and empower judges to walk those lines, make those distinctions. The attempt to equivocate the two is silly.
I’m going to believe he knows the law better than any of us, and assume, unlike us, he has heard every piece of testimony. I also believe he decided correctly. And that justice is served by his sentencing.
Under your law? Which law is that, for it certainly can not be Massachusetts’ law, for Carter was found guilty, and that decision lies four-square with a long-standing decision made by the highest court in the state.
If you insist that your law is Massachusetts’ law, let’s see the cases that you rely upon.
Of course we employ judges. We employ Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. They will come to different decisions in many cases. To disagree with a judge, or judges, is absolutely appropriate in Great Debates.
Further, I’m not sure why it is “silly” to attempt to equivocate the two. Is it because in this case she went further than my hypothetical “suicide rights” man? Call it silly, but I want a brighter line than wherever a judge chooses to draw it if it means the difference between freedom or twenty years in prison.
UltraVires and Trinopus, great posts.
Give me a break. The beating makes that not similar at all.
No. Drunk drivers kill others. Maybe like egging on a rock climber to do it drunk. But even then, the drunk person is impaired, and doesn’t desire death at all.
And I’m not about to let you get by with “killing someone is”. She didn’t kill anyone. She is not Kilgrave from Jessica Jones. She gave what most people would consider bad advice/counsel.
Lots of people talking about small children for some reason. I liked what someone said on the Triple Nine Society Facebook group:
The only way I could find her criminally liable would be if a) the deceased was not consider to have agency (such as for a juvenile or a dependent adult), and b) she was in a position of legal guardianship over him.
If a parent did this to their child, or a designated caregiver did this to a dependent adult, I’d agree with the conviction.
Her boyfriend was 18 when he killed himself, which is the age of majority in Massachusetts.
I don’t know if her boyfriend’s mental health issues ever resulted in the state determining him to be incapable of managing his affairs, but there’s no indication she had any duty to care for him.
So, she might be a horrible person, but I can’t say she’s guilty of manslaughter.
It is not at all “four-square” with the Persampeiri case you cited. It that case, the man plead guilty. He was present and physically assisting. He loaded the gun and handed it to her. Hard facts make bad law, then and now.
This case opens up a Pandora’s box. If mere words are held to proximately cause a death, could this young man have used lethal force to defend himself? Suppose she had been standing there urging him to commit suicide. If mere words are said to be a proximate cause of suicide, could he not pull a gun and kill her for saying those things?
The response would be, “Of course not. All he has to do is choose not to commit suicide.” And that answers the causation question.
If a person encourages another random person who’s mentally stable to commit suicide, his words aren’t likely to have the effect of said person killing himself. If someone knows in advance, however, that another person is not only contemplating suicide but actually taking steps to make that happen, that’s quite another. It’s not just encouraging any person in this particular case; it’s encouraging someone who is clearly demonstrating vulnerability to commit suicide, and that’s the distinction that needs to be made. If a person manipulates someone who is easily manipulated into taking a course of action that might injure himself, it can absolutely be argued that he is causing her death. I agree that this is a gray area and that it’s possible a different judge might see it differently. It’s not the most airtight case out there, but the argument can be made nonetheless and this judge thought it met the standard.
-
You’re not as vulnerable as the person who committed suicide in this case.
-
Any reasonable person could have known that this kid was putting himself in serious danger. She had time to consider both the situation and her actions. It’s not a case of “Oops, I said the wrong thing at the wrong time” or making a joke about suicide not knowing that he was privately contemplating it. She knew – or should have known – that she was dealing with someone who needed help in order to live. It would have been bad enough to simply say “Sorry, I gotta go, bye.” That might have been callous but lawful. But she went beyond that – she actually uttered those words encouraging him to do it. Hell, nurses who assist with suicide in the Netherlands don’t even do that.
Different circumstances entirely. You’re talking about public advocacy, which has nothing to do with having an intimate conversation with a person on the verge of killing himself and encouraging him to follow through with it.
I agree that the argument can be made, was made, and was successful so far. I’m merely stating that it is, IMHO, the incorrect holding.
To address your point, do I have a duty to ensure that a person that I am suggest commit suicide is legally competent? If so, this young man presumably was as he was not under a guardianship or other legal procedure. It is presumed he was competent.
I’m sure that many people have made ill-advised comments such as “Why don’t you just die?” or “Go kill yourself and do us all a favor” or some such variant.
Is it a duty of the person making that statement to refrain from making it if the recipient of the statement has questionable mental capacity? Should the person have to hire a doctor to evaluate the person before making that statement?
If the person went into a mental hospital, for example, in the suicide watch wing and told a patient the same thing, maybe I could be convinced it is actionable. However, we don’t have that here. This terrible young woman honestly believed that it was the best course of action for this young man to kill himself. Is she not entitled to say that?
It seems that you want to draw a distinction that because she knew he was vulnerable that she is responsible. Isn’t it the case that only people who are contemplating suicide would ever take these type of statements seriously?
Suppose John Doe called my hypothetical founder of the “suicide rights” group and asked him if he should kill himself. What response could my founder say that would not expose him to involuntary manslaughter charges in Massachusetts?
What about:
- Yes
- If you really want to, then yes.
- It is your right to make that choice.
- You should do it.
- Based upon what you’ve told me, you really should do it. Don’t pussy out on me!
- Seriously, just do it. It’s the best thing.
? Do we want a coin flip (which judge you draw) to determine whether #1-6 is criminal?
Commonwealth v. Bowen, 13 Mass. 356, Mas. Supreme Court (1816) – the highest Massachusetts court
https://www.ravellaw.com/opinions/f0f63b8a3f87473e69a693abdf00f8a9
Commonwealth v. Dennis, 105 Mass. 162, Mass. Supreme Court (1870) – the highest Massachusetts court
https://www.ravellaw.com/opinions/d904ff8113615fca1a9134f343ec99d1
Persampieri v. Commonwealth, 175 NE 2d 387 - Mass: Supreme Judicial Court 1961 – the highest Massachusetts court
https://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case?case=7136901593610804135&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjv_4yHr8jUAhWo7YMKHcVABWcQgAMIIygAMAA
Commonwealth v. Carter, (yes, the early innings of the case this thread is focused on) Mass. Supreme Judicial Court 2016, SCJ 12043 – the highest Massachusetts court
That’s two-hundred years of the highest court in Massachusetts directly on point and consistently finding the act of talking others into killing themselves to be a criminal act.
Now earlier I asked you to provide case law to support your position, but you have chosen not to provide any. Well, simply declaring on your own authority that “under our law, she is not guilty of an offense,” without citing your law just doesn’t cut it. So how about it? What law is it that you rely on? Please be specific, with citations, quoting the relevant passages, and using either the highest level of Massachusetts court or higher. That way we can compare and discus the law rather than just personal preference for what we would like the law to be.
I think the question here is, what would a reasonably ethical and mature person have done in this situation so as not to factor into this tragic outcome? If someone is sitting in a car with carbon monoxide and telling you that he’s trying to kill himself, is it really necessary to establish whether or not this person was under psychiatric care? I don’t think you have to provide an answer to that question one way or another. The original question stands: if someone has a friend who’s telling him that he/she’s got a gun to his or her head, what would a reasonable person do? More to the point, what would a reasonable person absolutely NOT do?
True but I think the judge felt that it went beyond the occasionally flippant or even the momentarily cruel comment said out of anger. I think the judge concluded that this was different, that the defendant was actually involved in the suicide, albeit remotely. Again, I acknowledge that a different judge might have reached a different conclusion, but I don’t think I can really find too much fault with the judge in this case. People seem worried about the potential slippery slope but I don’t see it. This is a very unique case with particular circumstances than those that are being tossed about in various hypothetical scenarios. If anything, I think the takeaway from this case is, behave reasonably.
You seem to be arguing that a medical diagnosis is what is required to establish the vulnerability of the victim. I don’t think that this is true, and apparently the judge didn’t feel that was the case either. Again, the test is what an ordinary and “reasonable” person would do. I think we can at least agree that this was terrible conduct and a bad idea, right? Well that’s the thing about manslaughter: the more that something passes the “It’s a bad idea” test the more likely it is to become manslaughter or its variants if this behavior results in someone’s death. No judge is going to say “Well it was obviously a bad idea to advise someone with a loaded gun at their head to pull the trigger, but technically speaking, he wasn’t ever admitted to a psychiatric facility - case dismissed” That’s probably not how it works. That’s not how it worked in this case at least. I could still see a judge saying “He had joked about suicide in the past or he talked about suicide to gain attention, and maybe she didn’t really have reason to take him seriously” But the judge felt otherwise in this case.
It seems that you want to draw a distinction that because she knew he was vulnerable that she is responsible. Isn’t it the case that only people who are contemplating suicide would ever take these type of statements seriously?
It depends. Is suicide counseling suicide a legal activity in the state? If so, under what circumstances? Lots of variables at play here, so I can’t answer that question I’m afraid.
I go back to this: she wouldn’t be on trial if she had exercised reasonable judgment. The more that a judge or even a layperson can say “What the bleep was she thinking?” the more likely it is to be deemed manslaughter.
This is entirely a stupid case to begin with. Two dumbass teenagers with no clue. Where were the parents, aunts, uncles, cousins or friends? I’m certainly not expecting a guy who keeps saying, “I WANT TO DIE” in his texts to get help from another socially inept teenager. Shit, after a while most teens would probably be texting, “Fine! Then DIE already!”
Michelle tried to help him originally, tried to get help, but turned out to be a flake in the end with her own teen problems mixed in. By saying that only her words, provided by hearsay, was the final push to get poor suicidal Conrad to complete the deed is much more reprehensible then telling someone to kill themselves. She shouldn’t have been charged with anything. No way.
Who else knew he was suicidal? No one? Bullshit. You want to charge someone on this? Find the slacked-off parents. Take his fucking cell phone away and send him to mental care. Prescribe some drugs. Blaming a distant girlfriend? Please…
To me, it’s fear of technology in a new way. 16-year-old girls posting snapchats wearing a sports bra are now getting arrested. Two teens texting about fucking get arrested even though it’s consensual. Now text messages and cell phones that are always with you are a weapon. “Her voice was in his head”, said the judge. No, a lot of bullshit was in the inept Conrad’s head to begin with. A little boy on a bike could’ve convinced him to do it. Maybe even being bit by a mosquito. A sad song on the radio, maybe about how depressing college life is would’ve convinced him to do it.
If she was there helping him, yes, there’s a crime. She wasn’t there, so forget it.
If this isn’t appealed, we’ll all have to wait a few days for our posts to be edited, just in case someone calls someone else a troll and they jump off a bridge. “She told me to kill myself on the phone!” “He called me names on a message board! Aaaaaaaah…” all the way down.
Crap all around.
And this is what I call bullshit to the core. Conrad was suicidal for a long time, seemed to get no help from anyone close to him, and one shitty teenager is all it took?
If anything, Conrad convinced Michelle that this was THE BEST solution for him, he manipulated her into helping him kill himself.
Okay, first of all IANAL and I am arguing for what I believe is right based on general civil libertarian principles, so I don’t care about precedent or specifics of Massachusetts law. If the law was followed perfectly here, the law is wrong.
This looks like a straw man. What I am arguing–and I don’t see anyone else disagreeing with the verdict but contradicting my argument–is the following:
(1) She was not joking or speaking off the cuff without thinking.
(2) She knew her words could make it substantially more likely that he would go through with the suicide.
(3) This was her heartfelt desire, that he take his own life.
(4) She should have the legal right to say what she did to him, just as neo-Nazis should have the right to march through Hasidic Jewish neighborhoods, swastikas unfurled. Again, many reprehensible acts should not be illegal. Social reprobation must needs suffice.