Is the suicide encourager guilty or not guilty?

[ryan]

I say she is innocent even though I feel sick when I read her texts in the article below.

The article is short but seems to sum up the whole thing and in a very compelling way.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime...light-sentence/ar-AApjE4Y?ocid=ob-tw-enus-702

(I did not post this in the Morals section because I am not asking if she is immoral. I only want to know if you think she is guilty as in breaking the law)

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I would say guilty. It sounds like this was a mentally ill individual and she played upon his mental illness to get the suicide from a potential to an actuality.

 

[zorq]

What about freedom of speech? What about individual volition?

If I tell you to, "Take a long walk off a short pier," and you do it, you are telling me I now responsible for your actions and an accomplice to your death. No.

If I tell you to, "Go fuck yourself," and you do it, is that now sexual assault?

If I recommend to a loved one suffering from a painful, terminal illness that, "It might be time to let go," and they do... will they send me to prison?

No. I'm not responsible for your behavior just because I gave you bad advice. If bad advice was punishable, there is a pile of financial advisers and bankers who deserve time in the pokey for 'theft' following the crash of 2007.

Ultimately only the individual is responsible for their own behavior. If the individual's only coersion is mere words... that's weak sauce.

 

[abaddon]

Her words were more like goading to the point of tormenting someone, than like bad advice or telling someone to fuck off. Let's use another, more apt example: If someone is holding a gun to his head and seems intent to pull the trigger but then has second thoughts, and you convince him to NOT have second thoughts... then you participated in the death. If yelling "go ahead, shoot yourself, do it!" at someone with a likelihood to actually shoot himself is free speech, then free speech should be a little less free. I don't believe society will turn tyrannical if there were a few such limits on free speech. No extensive vocal bullying, no talking people into self-harm, and similar limits.

Also, the defense says it's not legally required for someone to intervene in a crime. Seems to me she did intervene, but to support the commission of the crime.

I'm not sure what she did is currently illegal. This will be appealed. The appeals process is why I agree with the judge's verdict, because I'm hoping that appeal process results in a new precedent set for limits on free speech as I described above. That's why I chose "Guilty" in the options even if she might not be technically guilty under current laws.

 

[zorq]

Her words were more like goading to the point of tormenting someone, than like bad advice or telling someone to fuck off.

Ahem, I instructed 'you' to "Go fuck yourself," not "Fuck off." Now if 'you' do it, will I be guilty of sexual assault? I'm serious.

Let's use another, more apt example: If someone is holding a gun to his head and seems intent to pull the trigger but then has second thoughts, and you convince him to NOT have second thoughts... then you participated in the death. If yelling "go ahead, shoot yourself, do it!" at someone with a likelihood to actually shoot himself is free speech, then free speech should be a little less free. I don't believe society will turn tyrannical if there were a few such limits on free speech. No extensive vocal bullying, no talking people into self-harm, and similar limits.[/FONT]

This is a difference in enthusiasm, not a difference in rhetoric. Is how enthusiastic we are when we express ourselves the factor that makes our speech criminal?

Also, the defense says it's not legally required for someone to intervene in a crime. Seems to me she did intervene, but to support the commission of the crime.

Is suicide illegal in Massachusetts? Nevermind, I just looked it up and suicide is NOT illegal in Massachusetts (at least this victim's method of suicide). So there was no crime for outside parties to intervene in in the first place.

I'm not sure what she did is currently illegal. This will be appealed. The appeals process is why I agree with the judge's verdict, because I'm hoping that appeal process results in a new precedent set for limits on free speech as I described above. That's why I chose "Guilty" in the options even if she might not be technically guilty under current laws.

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

 

[LordKiran]

Ahem, I instructed 'you' to "Go fuck yourself," not "Fuck off." Now if 'you' do it, will I be guilty of sexual assault? I'm serious.

I am always interested in how people choose to assign blame because it tells you a lot about them. Now if he did "Go fuck himself" that wouldn't be sexual assault but if he killed himself as either a direct or indirect result of you putting him down? Are bullies not even remotely responsible when they torment someone and push them to suicide? Do you deny completely that people have any responsibility for what they say when it contributes to someone else's tragedy? These aren't just legal questions, they're ethical ones too, and ethics and morals are ultimately what decides how we write our laws and what we choose to base them around.

Human beings, and the ways they interact are complex and rarely is there a 'one size fits all' answer to anything, this is why we have judges who are empowered to make judgments on a case-by-case basis.

 

[zorq]

Ahem, I instructed 'you' to "Go fuck yourself," not "Fuck off." Now if 'you' do it, will I be guilty of sexual assault? I'm serious.

I am always interested in how people choose to assign blame because it tells you a lot about them. Now if he did "Go fuck himself" that wouldn't be sexual assault but if he killed himself as either a direct or indirect result of you putting him down?
Are bullies not even remotely responsible when they torment someone and push them to suicide? Do you deny completely that people have any responsibility for what they say when it contributes to someone else's tragedy? These aren't just legal questions, they're ethical ones too, and ethics and morals are ultimately what decides how we write our laws and what we choose to base them around.

I will not and never will deny that words are powerful. I understand and appreciate that the 1st amendment has limits and for good reason. The things we say can cause tremendous harm to others, but where is the line? Why does "Go take a long walk off a short pier," get a pass, but a long protracted cyberbullying campaign with the same sentiment get a criminal conviction? If the girl in this case had sent 1 fewer txt would she still be convicted? 10 fewer? 100? What is it?

Human beings, and the ways they interact are complex and rarely is there a 'one size fits all' answer to anything, this is why we have judges who are empowered to make judgments on a case-by-case basis.

 

[J842P]

I am always interested in how people choose to assign blame because it tells you a lot about them. Now if he did "Go fuck himself" that wouldn't be sexual assault but if he killed himself as either a direct or indirect result of you putting him down?
Are bullies not even remotely responsible when they torment someone and push them to suicide? Do you deny completely that people have any responsibility for what they say when it contributes to someone else's tragedy? These aren't just legal questions, they're ethical ones too, and ethics and morals are ultimately what decides how we write our laws and what we choose to base them around.

I will not and never will deny that words are powerful. I understand and appreciate that the 1st amendment has limits and for good reason. The things we say can cause tremendous harm to others, but where is the line? Why does "Go take a long walk off a short pier," get a pass, but a long protracted cyberbullying campaign with the same sentiment get a criminal conviction? If the girl in this case had sent 1 fewer txt would she still be convicted? 10 fewer? 100? What is it?

Human beings, and the ways they interact are complex and rarely is there a 'one size fits all' answer to anything, this is why we have judges who are empowered to make judgments on a case-by-case basis.

This case is not really akin to a bullying campaign, which I think is a reasonable case for speech crossing into the realm of criminal harassment.

Rather, the girl encouraged the guy to kill himself, and I think she probably did think she was doing the right thing. Good to keep in mind that they were both pretty messed up, and I guess they had both decided that him killing himself was the best way to go.

A truly interesting ethical question here.

 

[ronburgundy]

If yelling "go ahead, shoot yourself, do it!" at someone with a likelihood to actually shoot himself is free speech, then free speech should be a little less free. I don't believe society will turn tyrannical if there were a few such limits on free speech. No extensive vocal bullying, no talking people into self-harm, and similar limits.[/FONT]

The problem is that there are never just a "few such limits" once the door is opened by your kind of reasoning. That's because your criteria and all criteria for where to draw the line are so extremely ambiguous, subjective, and unprovable by any rational means. Thus, whether the criteria are met become purely a matter of subjective feeling, with the only feelings that matter being those of the authorities in charge (and even when that means a majority of voters it still entails tyranny of the majority).

What does "excessive" mean? How do you prove that words spoken by another where the neccessary and sufficient cause of an action when those words were not tied to any promise of any tangible reward or punishment? (such as with the words of a mob boss who promises payment or death to a hitman depending on whether they kill someone).

Also, What is "harm" if the person supposedly "harmed" wanted it to happen? After all, its not even illegal to beat the crap out of someone and physically damage their flesh, if they go along with it. It isn't a crime because their will determines that such effects no longer constitute "harm". So, how can it be illegal to merely use words to encourage them to harm themselves, especially when they have a proven track record of wanting to and being willing to harm themselves in that way and their will alone had the final say in the outcome?

Also, the defense says it's not legally required for someone to intervene in a crime. Seems to me she did intervene, but to support the commission of the crime.

But only under the authoritarian bullshit law that suicide makes a person a criminal. The fact that suicide attempts are never treated as criminals proves no one actually supports such an idea, so it should not be a crime, and thus giving verbal support to the act should not be a crime either. In fact, it is rarely ever a crime to "support" a crime with mere words of encouragement. Actual physical action to provide tangible material support is required, or a serious verbal promise to provide tangible support and/or compensation. Notice that such actions and verbal promises are crimes even when the other person does not wind up committing the crime. If we extend this to this situation, then saying "You should kill yourself." would be a crime even if the person never tries to kill themself.

And why wouldn't it apply to all art and public expression. Why should it matter if its directed at a particular individual? Any public speaker knows that kids and/or mentally unstable people are likely to hear their speech, and that speech can have some impact on the probability of what those people choose to do. IF a musician says "Suicide is the only solution." to 10 million teens, the odds that one of them is made more likely to kill themselves is actually greater than if they say it only to one particular person who has shown suicidal tendencies. There is no rational principles basis to criminalize one type of speech act and not the other.

 

[ronburgundy]

Ahem, I instructed 'you' to "Go fuck yourself," not "Fuck off." Now if 'you' do it, will I be guilty of sexual assault? I'm serious.

I am always interested in how people choose to assign blame because it tells you a lot about them. Now if he did "Go fuck himself" that wouldn't be sexual assault but if he killed himself as either a direct or indirect result of you putting him down? Are bullies not even remotely responsible when they torment someone and push them to suicide? Do you deny completely that people have any responsibility for what they say when it contributes to someone else's tragedy? These aren't just legal questions, they're ethical ones too, and ethics and morals are ultimately what decides how we write our laws and what we choose to base them around.

"Responsibility" has two completely separate meanings, ethical vs. legal, and only the latter applies to a guilty verdict here. Much of what is unethical is and should be legal. Keeping the two issues distinct and keeping the sphere of illegality much smaller than the sphere of immorality is the key difference between valuing human rights and liberty and being an authoritarian.
She might be unethical but that if far from sufficient for being criminal.

Human beings, and the ways they interact are complex and rarely is there a 'one size fits all' answer to anything, this is why we have judges who are empowered to make judgments on a case-by-case basis.

Judges should be making decisions on clear coherent principles that are consistently applied, not deciding on subjective feelings whether some ambiguous undefined "line" was crossed. There is no principle here supporting a crime that doesn't equally apply to countless speech acts, including all public speech and art where there is a likely chance that it would impact the decision of an already mentally immature/unstable person (see my reply to abaddon for more on this point).

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What about freedom of speech? What about individual volition?

If I tell you to, "Take a long walk off a short pier," and you do it, you are telling me I now responsible for your actions and an accomplice to your death. No.

If I tell you to, "Go fuck yourself," and you do it, is that now sexual assault?

If I recommend to a loved one suffering from a painful, terminal illness that, "It might be time to let go," and they do... will they send me to prison?

No. I'm not responsible for your behavior just because I gave you bad advice. If bad advice was punishable, there is a pile of financial advisers and bankers who deserve time in the pokey for 'theft' following the crash of 2007.

Ultimately only the individual is responsible for their own behavior. If the individual's only coersion is mere words... that's weak sauce.

The first two are clearly insults, not serious and thus not remotely relevant.

The third is close to the situation in question but it's not an attempt to encourage someone to do something they don't want to do.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem is that there are never just a "few such limits" once the door is opened by your kind of reasoning. That's because your criteria and all criteria for where to draw the line are so extremely ambiguous, subjective, and unprovable by any rational means. Thus, whether the criteria are met become purely a matter of subjective feeling, with the only feelings that matter being those of the authorities in charge (and even when that means a majority of voters it still entails tyranny of the majority).

I don't think there's a big problem. Look at the sort of speech that is restricted--speech that can cause an immediate problem. Not speech that can cause a future problem. We criminalize speech that the listener would act on without the time for proper thought about it. (And, yes, I'm aware of a conviction for manslaughter due to speech. She cried rape, he shot the man "raping" her. It wasn't rape, she was trying to avoid being caught cheating. The shooter walked, she went to jail.)

 

[LordKiran]

I am always interested in how people choose to assign blame because it tells you a lot about them. Now if he did "Go fuck himself" that wouldn't be sexual assault but if he killed himself as either a direct or indirect result of you putting him down? Are bullies not even remotely responsible when they torment someone and push them to suicide? Do you deny completely that people have any responsibility for what they say when it contributes to someone else's tragedy? These aren't just legal questions, they're ethical ones too, and ethics and morals are ultimately what decides how we write our laws and what we choose to base them around.

"Responsibility" has two completely separate meanings, ethical vs. legal, and only the latter applies to a guilty verdict here. Much of what is unethical is and should be legal. Keeping the two issues distinct and keeping the sphere of illegality much smaller than the sphere of immorality is the key difference between valuing human rights and liberty and being an authoritarian.
She might be unethical but that if far from sufficient for being criminal.

Human beings, and the ways they interact are complex and rarely is there a 'one size fits all' answer to anything, this is why we have judges who are empowered to make judgments on a case-by-case basis.

Judges should be making decisions on clear coherent principles that are consistently applied, not deciding on subjective feelings whether some ambiguous undefined "line" was crossed. There is no principle here supporting a crime that doesn't equally apply to countless speech acts, including all public speech and art where there is a likely chance that it would impact the decision of an already mentally immature/unstable person (see my reply to abaddon for more on this point).

I would argue that one's sense of justice is not based on constant principles that never change, so why should our legal system be so? Do we not have the right to change the system to suit what we want from it? Does what we perceive as just not change over time? If law is not based on our shared perceptions of what is just and what is not, then where does it draw its legitimacy as a code of laws to which we are beholden from?

 

[zorq]

What about freedom of speech? What about individual volition?

If I tell you to, "Take a long walk off a short pier," and you do it, you are telling me I now responsible for your actions and an accomplice to your death. No.

If I tell you to, "Go fuck yourself," and you do it, is that now sexual assault?

If I recommend to a loved one suffering from a painful, terminal illness that, "It might be time to let go," and they do... will they send me to prison?

No. I'm not responsible for your behavior just because I gave you bad advice. If bad advice was punishable, there is a pile of financial advisers and bankers who deserve time in the pokey for 'theft' following the crash of 2007.

Ultimately only the individual is responsible for their own behavior. If the individual's only coersion is mere words... that's weak sauce.

The first two are clearly insults, not serious and thus not remotely relevant.

Really? You are reading my mind now? What if they were quite serious?

The third is close to the situation in question but it's not an attempt to encourage someone to do something they don't want to do.

Is the legal system as good at mind reading as you are? Where is it revealed that every terminal patient wants to die ... or for that matter, that every victim of bullying doesn't alreaddy have a sincere desire to commit suicide?

The motive of the person taking advice is often much less than obvious.

 

[ronburgundy]

"Responsibility" has two completely separate meanings, ethical vs. legal, and only the latter applies to a guilty verdict here. Much of what is unethical is and should be legal. Keeping the two issues distinct and keeping the sphere of illegality much smaller than the sphere of immorality is the key difference between valuing human rights and liberty and being an authoritarian.
She might be unethical but that if far from sufficient for being criminal.

Human beings, and the ways they interact are complex and rarely is there a 'one size fits all' answer to anything, this is why we have judges who are empowered to make judgments on a case-by-case basis.

Judges should be making decisions on clear coherent principles that are consistently applied, not deciding on subjective feelings whether some ambiguous undefined "line" was crossed. There is no principle here supporting a crime that doesn't equally apply to countless speech acts, including all public speech and art where there is a likely chance that it would impact the decision of an already mentally immature/unstable person (see my reply to abaddon for more on this point).

I would argue that one's sense of justice is not based on constant principles that never change, so why should our legal system be so? Do we not have the right to change the system to suit what we want from it? Does what we perceive as just not change over time? If law is not based on our shared perceptions of what is just and what is not, then where does it draw its legitimacy as a code of laws to which we are beholden from?

The subjective sense of justice of any individual is often rooted in purely selfish motives and reactionary emotions that lack any foundation in any principles of fairness.
A legal system within any remotely free society will not be supported by those it governs unless it is rooted in clear and consistently applied principles, which is essentially the very definition of fairness and justice beyond how a single person might feel based on the self-serving nature of any outcome. Only under fascistic autocratic systems where the whim of authority is law does it make sense to have a legal system that mirrors the unprincipled selfish feelings of a particular individual, depending on the context.

In a democratic society that values fairness and equality under the law, the principles can be changed, but the application of whatever the principles are entailed under current law should be consistent. Also, judges in the US have no power to decide what those principles are. Those principles are decided by the Constitution and legislation. The judge is charged with applying principles in a consistent manner so long as those are the principles under the law. IOW, the law makers (and voters who influence them) can decide to change a legal principle such as to allow local governments to criminalize speech that offends any religious belief. But it is not up to the judge to decide that its okay to offend Islam but not Christianity or to use some subjective criteria for what constitutes being sufficiently "offended" or what counts as "religious belief". They must use objective criteria that are consistently applied across all laws to which those concepts logically apply. As a result, speech laws must be very explicitly and narrowly defined to only apply in specific situations, because any allowance for a judge to use subjective feeling that some speech goes too far, either means that the law is applied inconsistently and unfairly or must be applied to all logically similar circumstances which means death to anything resembling free speech as we now enjoy it.

Freedom hurts sometimes. There will be abuses of it and some negative consequences. The short-sighted and fearful react to those situations by attacking the right to that speech, while those like the US founders took the reflective long-term view that those harms are far far outweighed by the harm of erosion to that right which occurs every time an exception to that right is made, and the more vague the criteria for that exception, the more harmful erosion to free speech in general.

 

[ronburgundy]

The problem is that there are never just a "few such limits" once the door is opened by your kind of reasoning. That's because your criteria and all criteria for where to draw the line are so extremely ambiguous, subjective, and unprovable by any rational means. Thus, whether the criteria are met become purely a matter of subjective feeling, with the only feelings that matter being those of the authorities in charge (and even when that means a majority of voters it still entails tyranny of the majority).

I don't think there's a big problem. Look at the sort of speech that is restricted--speech that can cause an immediate problem. Not speech that can cause a future problem. We criminalize speech that the listener would act on without the time for proper thought about it. (And, yes, I'm aware of a conviction for manslaughter due to speech. She cried rape, he shot the man "raping" her. It wasn't rape, she was trying to avoid being caught cheating. The shooter walked, she went to jail.)

My response was not merely to this case but the posters more general idea that making "a few" limits is harmless, and that limits should apply to "extensive vocal bullying, no talking people into self-harm, and similar limits." Vocal bullying cannot be argued to be likely to cause a criminal act, even if suicide is considered a crime, which is should not be. The case you are referring to entailed a person committing a crime of murder, and all evidence suggested that her speech was the direct necessary cause of his criminal action going from near zero probability to extremely high, and that her speech contained objective falsehoods. IOW, it is nothing like bullying or this current case where objective falsehoods are rarely entailed and where the probability of the action with or without the speech cannot be reasonably surmised (in fact, in this case the guy was already likely to kill himself based on his own prior actions).

 

[ryan]

What about freedom of speech? What about individual volition?

If I tell you to, "Take a long walk off a short pier," and you do it, you are telling me I now responsible for your actions and an accomplice to your death. No.

If I tell you to, "Go fuck yourself," and you do it, is that now sexual assault?

If I recommend to a loved one suffering from a painful, terminal illness that, "It might be time to let go," and they do... will they send me to prison?

No. I'm not responsible for your behavior just because I gave you bad advice. If bad advice was punishable, there is a pile of financial advisers and bankers who deserve time in the pokey for 'theft' following the crash of 2007.

Ultimately only the individual is responsible for their own behavior. If the individual's only coersion is mere words... that's weak sauce.

Thank-you, thank-you, thank-you, this is a what I should have given as my reasoning.

I am really disturbed by this ruling. I know I am in Canada, but I have to think that other lawyers now are going to have this ruling in the back of their minds.

 

[Malintent]

One would need the unabridged content of the text messages to be able to decide that.

Were her words akin to "shouting 'fire!' in a crowded movie theater when there is no fire"?
Or, were her words more akin to those exchanged between family members when discussing healthcare options for the terminally ill?

 

[Kharakov]

If someone had encouraged me to commit suicide at an earlier point in my life, I could have avoided a lifetime of pointless pain and suffering. I tend to think people who don't encourage suicide (among the disenfranchised who have no chance at the good life) are guilty, not the other way around.

Then again, I don't know if the kid who killed itself (him/her??) was some spoiled nitwit who had a chance at a decent life or not.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Aiding and abetting a vunerable person to take their lives should be classed as murder. The intent was that this person dies and rather than use a gun or a knife she said the following:

You're so hesitant because you keep over thinking it and keep pushing it off. You just need to do it, Conrad. The more you push it off, the more it will eat at you. You're ready and prepared."

I believe the fact she was a trouble teen affected by medication could be a defence. However not every troubled teen who takes medication contributes to the death of others.