Her texts pushed him to commit suicide, prosecutors say. But does that mean she killed him? https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/3a49f715-0ee6-31aa-a0d6-8ebad26a1d73/ss_her-texts-pushed-him-to.html The above article describes a very interesting case currently being prosecuted in Massachusetts. To summarize, a 17 year old girl egged her 18 year old boyfriend who was suffering from depression to commit suicide via multiple text messages. Is she guilty of complicity to murder? IMO as much of a sick person she is, my answer is no. She is not responsible for his voluntary suicide no matter what state of mind he was in and should not even face prosecution. But I am interested in other opinions. Please chime in.
It's a bad thing, and even crime in many jurisdictions, but it's not a murder. Commit murder imply your victim has no choice.
As it turns out, she was convicted of involuntary manslaughter. IMO, the jury acted on emotion, not logic.
Probably not but my opinion has nothing to do with the law (especially the Constitution) and the precedent is astounding. What it amounts to is that the judge decided speech is now a weapon and can be prosecuted as such in violation of the First Amendment. Odds are this will be appealed and rightly so.
Here is another opinion: Texting suicide verdict could set bad precedent, legal experts say SAN FRANCISCO — The day after a juvenile court judge in Massachusetts convicted Michelle Carter of killing boyfriend Conrad Roy III with her words, some legal and cyber issues experts cautioned that the punishment may not fit the crime. “I draw a line between moral and legal implications of what she did," says Daniel Medwed, professor of law and criminal justice at Northeastern University school of law. “In terms of morality, what she did is despicable. But that doesn’t constitute manslaughter, and that’s the problem.” Read the rest ... https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...et-bad-precedent-legal-experts-say/102956784/
And little by little, words become criminalized. Usually by a prosecutor taking questionably excessive liberties in how they construe open-ended worded laws. That's how they criminalize free speech in other regimes around the world. Even if she hadn't pushed him over the edge, how do we know he wouldn't have eventually gone ahead and done it on his own two or three years later? And if words can be criminalized, are we going to start seeing people framed in the future with falsely planted text messages? Someone doesn't even need physical access to your phone to put them there (phone hacking has become extremely common).
