Michelle Carter conviction

[bethben]

I just saw this and honestly, it scares me for my children and their friends.  Basically, she told another teen to commit suicide and instructed him to follow through with it.  For her part, she was sentenced with involuntary manslaughter.  

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/16/us/suicide-texting-trial-michelle-carter-conrad-roy.html

 

I'm not quite sure what to say about this.  I'm sure this has happened before where one teen instructed another teen to commit suicide.  There was just never any physical proof of it.  Now, with cell phones, all that information can be retrieved.  

 

Along with that was a small high school in Colorado where a good amount of students were involved with transmitting naked pictures of other students via their cell phones. It's a felony.  One I'm pretty sure none of the students involved were aware of.  

 

Just wow.

[gardenmom5]

how much have you actually read about what she actually texted - and when?   did you know he didn't want to kill himself - and he got out of the car - she demanded he get back inside it?  that she berated him for being a coward for NOT killing himself?

 

this wasn't one or two texts.  there were dozens.   and she knew what she did was wrong.

 

she was a nightmare.

 

 

know you kids friends. . . . and his parents said they had no idea.

 

[Tangerine]

I recommend the 48 hours episode. http://www.cbs.com/shows/48_hours/video/kWd0RETQhwhxAKc7lxHA0otD8u3strdv/death-by-text/

[NorthwestMom]

Even though I think  I understand the legal technicalities and issues that make this conviction questionable, I personally feel fine about it. She was horrible. There should be consequences for what she did. 

[Tap]

Are you scared because you worry about someone vulnerable to suicidal thoughts, being encouraged to kill themselves?

 

Or are you scared because you just realized that the girl is getting convicted for encouraging suicide?  (If this is the case you really should read some of the links because she is not the victim in this case.  She absolutely knew that if he did what she was instructing him to do, would kill him)

 

 

 

 

As far as the photos you mentioned....there is not a neurotipical teen in public/traditional private high school who is ignorant to this.  The parents...maybe, but they would have to have had not bothered to educate themselves about the risks of teens and the digital world.  The teens..NOPE.  It is not a new trend it has been discussed in length in the news and on social media for years and years!  It is common in middle school, and very, very common in high school. (Even elementary schools have had issues). Schools address this issue multiple times per year at  student assemblies and in handbooks, and in discussions in health class, among others.  

 

Any child who has a phone, digital camera, or computer should be educated by parents about taking, storing, sharing, downloading, uploading and sending images of themselves and others.  If a parent gets a kid a phone and doesn't bother to educate themselves and the kid on the dangers of sending selfies/nudes/semi-nude  images, then that is on the parent and kid, not the school.   You may not be able to stop someone from sending one to your phone, but you absolutely have control of what you do with that image after the fact.  That action is what the kids get in trouble for. 

[Murphy101]

Even though I think I understand the legal technicalities and issues that make this conviction questionable, I personally feel fine about it. She was horrible. There should be consequences for what she did.

I agree. What she did was purposeful psychological abuse.

 

Same goes for those college adults and the pictures.

 

Whether they knew their acts were illegal or not, the twisted little turds absolutely knew it was awful and cruel abuse and they took pleasure in doing it.

[DawnM]

She even asked him to DELETE her texts before he fully died so she wouldn't "get in trouble."

 

She is a cold, calculated accessory to murder.

[Wheres Toto]

A 12 year old girl near me committed suicide a couple weeks ago (Rockaway NJ).    She was being bullied and right before she went in her room and killed herself, she was sent a text "why don't you just kill yourself?".  

 

I definitely think there should be consequences.

[goldberry]

A 12 year old girl near me committed suicide a couple weeks ago (Rockaway NJ). She was being bullied and right before she went in her room and killed herself, she was sent a text "why don't you just kill yourself?".

 

I definitely think there should be consequences.

This has gone on for too long without any consequences. I'm glad this happened. If it makes any of these kids think twice before sending those kind of messages, it's good.

[Anne in CA]

My dd had a friend who was severely depressed, the friend had another friend who urged her to just kill herself. It was not good. I still don't know how it will all play out. Mental healthcare is not good here. The waiting lists are long, both girls in the case I speak of had real mental health issues that would need addressing, and both of them had parents with the money to get it but the parents don't take it seriously. No one wants to admit your child has such issues. 

 

I feel bad for all the families. I do think the young woman "snapped". She had been acting as his unpaid counselor and possibly simply decided he wasn't fit to live. She is so young. It doesn't sound like she was teaming up with mean kids to bully him. It  sounds like she went too long with no outside help and his depressing thoughts wore her out. I'd feel very differently if she and others had been taunting him for a power trip. Then I'd have no trouble sending her to jail. At all. Bullying needs to be a crime. That doesn't look like what happened here. 

[gardenmom5]

My dd had a friend who was severely depressed, the friend had another friend who urged her to just kill herself. It was not good. I still don't know how it will all play out. Mental healthcare is not good here. The waiting lists are long, both girls in the case I speak of had real mental health issues that would need addressing, and both of them had parents with the money to get it but the parents don't take it seriously. No one wants to admit your child has such issues. 

 

I feel bad for all the families. I do think the young woman "snapped". She had been acting as his unpaid counselor and possibly simply decided he wasn't fit to live. She is so young. It doesn't sound like she was teaming up with mean kids to bully him. It  sounds like she went too long with no outside help and his depressing thoughts wore her out. I'd feel very differently if she and others had been taunting him for a power trip. Then I'd have no trouble sending her to jail. At all. Bullying needs to be a crime. That doesn't look like what happened here. 

 

she'd been urging him for awhile, it wasn't sudden.  she enjoyed the attention from her peers when her "boyfriend" killed himself.  his friends didn't even know who she was.

 

eta: what she did makes me think of munchausen by proxy.

Edited June 27, 2017 by gardenmom5

[Farrar]

I'm deeply bothered by the verdict. She was mentally ill minor child who said things. Yes, they were appalling things. But they were speech. And she was found guilty of manslaughter. As much as I think what she did was abhorrent, I'm not okay with that. 

[Anne in CA]

she'd been urging him for awhile, it wasn't sudden.  she enjoyed the attention from her peers when her "boyfriend" killed himself.  his friends didn't even know who she was.

The article I read suggested she had only been urging him for two weeks after being a sympathetic listener for more than a year... I haven't read up on this more than one article, but it didn't seem like bullying in the normal way to me. 

[Farrar]

I also think it's important to be clear... she was not bullying him in the classic sense. She was his girlfriend. They met because they were both profoundly messed up kids who were both dealing with serious depression. He spoke to her about suicide often - and like many mentally ill people, she came to believe, in part because of him, that it was something that would free him from his depression. Obviously, that's screwed up. But she was screwed up. And she was a child at the time. Her very disturbed, twisted motivation was not to hurt him or take pleasure in his suffering. The exact opposite. She thought she was helping him stop suffering.

 

I'm not saying there should be no consequences. But manslaughter? And 20 years in prison? I don't think that fits the crime. And I'm concerned about the legal precedent it sets.

[bethben]

I also think it's important to be clear... she was not bullying him in the classic sense. She was his girlfriend. They met because they were both profoundly messed up kids who were both dealing with serious depression. He spoke to her about suicide often - and like many mentally ill people, she came to believe, in part because of him, that it was something that would free him from his depression. Obviously, that's screwed up. But she was screwed up. And she was a child at the time. Her very disturbed, twisted motivation was not to hurt him or take pleasure in his suffering. The exact opposite. She thought she was helping him stop suffering.

 

I'm not saying there should be no consequences. But manslaughter? And 20 years in prison? I don't think that fits the crime. And I'm concerned about the legal precedent it sets.

 

This is how I see it.  The thinking patterns of some of the teens I know is obviously not at an adult level.  So, yes, there should be some sort of consequence to this, but I do think the sentence is harsh.  I know of a teen that has some deep anxiety problems.  One day she's so in love with her boyfriend, the next, she breaks up with him.  She thinks that the short term medical facility she's in is a great place because everyone understands her.  Mom is wonderful one day, horrible the next.  This is not the mind of a rational adult.  I guess I see a teen who is not thinking correctly texting another teen who is not thinking correctly.  I can understand the harsh penalty if it was an adult counselor in a position of trust that did this.  A teen who's already dealing with mental health issues - not so much.

[Murphy101]

I'm deeply bothered by the verdict. She was mentally ill minor child who said things. Yes, they were appalling things. But they were speech. And she was found guilty of manslaughter. As much as I think what she did was abhorrent, I'm not okay with that.

Well if you scream BOMB in a crowded place with the intent of it starting a panic and it does, resulting in injuries or deaths - you are likely to be in deep doodoo for "just speaking".

 

Words are not always just words.

[gardenmom5]

This is how I see it.  The thinking patterns of some of the teens I know is obviously not at an adult level.  So, yes, there should be some sort of consequence to this, but I do think the sentence is harsh.  I know of a teen that has some deep anxiety problems.  One day she's so in love with her boyfriend, the next, she breaks up with him.  She thinks that the short term medical facility she's in is a great place because everyone understands her.  Mom is wonderful one day, horrible the next.  This is not the mind of a rational adult.  I guess I see a teen who is not thinking correctly texting another teen who is not thinking correctly.  I can understand the harsh penalty if it was an adult counselor in a position of trust that did this.  A teen who's already dealing with mental health issues - not so much.

 

huh?  I thought she was being sentenced in august

[Farrar]

Well if you scream BOMB in a crowded place with the intent of it starting a panic and it does, resulting in injuries or deaths - you are likely to be in deep doodoo for "just speaking".

 

Words are not always just words.

 

I'm aware of that. But I still don't think what she did comes anywhere near manslaughter. Again, I do think it's absolutely fair to punish her somehow for her speech. But, context... if a mentally ill person believed there was a fire in a crowded theater and shouted "Fire!" then I think the punishment should be radically different than a sane person hoping to start a stampede and harm people. And what she did is much more akin to the first thing.

 

Time, place, manner restrictions are absolutely important and integral to our free speech rights. However, I think we have to be extremely careful when we punish people for speech.

[Farrar]

huh?  I thought she was being sentenced in august

 

She is. I think maybe she meant the crime she was charged with and the potential sentence that goes with it?

[Corraleno]

I'm aware of that. But I still don't think what she did comes anywhere near manslaughter. Again, I do think it's absolutely fair to punish her somehow for her speech. But, context... if a mentally ill person believed there was a fire in a crowded theater and shouted "Fire!" then I think the punishment should be radically different than a sane person hoping to start a stampede and harm people. And what she did is much more akin to the first thing.

 

Actually, what she did is more akin to telling someone who is running out of a burning building to run back in because she wants him dead.

 

When Conrad Roy panicked and tried to get out of the truck, she berated him and ordered him to get back in, and then listened on her phone while he died. The judge made it very clear that it was that particular act that led to her conviction. She knew that at that moment he did NOT want to die, but she made him get back in because she wanted him to die — she had already told some people that he had died and felt she would be humiliated if it turned out to be untrue.

 

She absolutely knew that what she did was wrong and that she would be in serious trouble if she was found out; that is not the mindset of a mentally ill person who doesn't understand the ramifications of what she's doing. There is no diminished capacity here.

Edited June 27, 2017 by Corraleno

[Janeway]

I definitely think she should be in jail for a long time so she cannot do it to anyone else. People want to feel better about evil by calling all evil "mental illness." But often, evil is just evil. People like to say "that person is just mentally ill and just needs help" because it denies real evil. Accepting that there is evil in this world is a scary thing. But evil is real and this girl is evil and she needs to be locked away for life. 

[ErinE]

If she had been standing next to him, urging him to get back in the truck, and watching him die, I don't think her culpability would be questioned. So I think it becomes a definition of her presence. Does being on the phone with her boyfriend make her "present" enough to mean she played a part in his death? I think so. Just because this conviction stretches the historical definition of manslaughter doesn't make the determination of guilt wrong. The access to and use of technology creates new ways to engage in criminal acts.

Edited June 27, 2017 by ErinE

[Greta]

Actually, what she did is more akin to telling someone who is running out of a burning building to run back in because she wants him dead.

 

When Conrad Roy panicked and tried to get out of the truck, she berated him and ordered him to get back in, and then listened on her phone while he died. The judge made it very clear that it was that particular act that led to her conviction. She knew that at that moment he did NOT want to die, but she made him get back in because she wanted him to die — she had already told some people that he had died and felt she would be humiliated if it turned out to be untrue.

 

She absolutely knew that what she did was wrong and that she would be in serious trouble if she was found out; that is not the mindset of a mentally ill person who doesn't understand the ramifications of what she's doing. There is no diminished capacity here.

 

 

Edit:  I'm going to reword my post.  My first impression was one of a mentally ill teen misguiding another mentally ill teen, and a failure of our healthcare system to take care of either one of them.  And I still suspect that all of that is true.  But the point that you (and FaithManor) made is that mentally ill does not automatically equal diminished capacity, and that is a critical point that wasn't dawning on me.  (And it really should have, no excuses.)

 

 

 

Edited June 27, 2017 by Greta

[FaithManor]

Mentally ill doesn't equal diminished culpability. My father figure was mentally ill, and yet absolutely knew what he was doing was wrong, bizarrely wrong, and attempted cold blooded, premeditated murder. My mom survived thankfully, and yes the state took into consideration his mental health status and medical issues, but did not let him off. Had they done so, he would have tried again, absolutely.

 

I think it is a pretty bad precedent to set to allow those without diminished capacity to get off on insanity pleas, and let them re-enter society to do it again. The innocent do have the right to protection. Now that said, I do wish we took mental health a heck of a lot more seriously in this country and actually paid for in patient and out patient treatment and supervision. What we have now is total CRAP and does not serve us at all!

 

But since I have BTDT with my father figure, it has really opened my eyes to the difference between those who truly are mentally ill enough to not understand or be able to exercise any control, versus those who have diminished capacity and can not. I believe in this instance, the girl did have the ability to understand, to exercise restraint on her actions, but deliberately chose not to so have no issue with the sentence.

Edited June 28, 2017 by FaithManor

[goldberry]

If she had been standing next to him, urging him to get back in the truck, and watching him die, I don't think her culpability would be questioned. So I think it becomes a definition of her presence. Does being on the phone with her boyfriend make her "present" enough to mean she played a part in his death? I think so. Just because this conviction stretches the historical definition of manslaughter doesn't make the determination of guilt wrong. The access to and use of technology creates new ways to engage in criminal acts.

 

Exactly.  And it's time the law started address the new realities.

 

Reminds me of an article I read about men sending unsolicited d*ck pics to women.  If a man flashes a woman in public, it's a crime.  But online unsolicited pics?  No biggie. Just get over it.  :glare:

Edited June 27, 2017 by goldberry

[Guest]

Nm

[meganrussell]

I definitely think she should be in jail for a long time so she cannot do it to anyone else. People want to feel better about evil by calling all evil "mental illness." But often, evil is just evil. People like to say "that person is just mentally ill and just needs help" because it denies real evil. Accepting that there is evil in this world is a scary thing. But evil is real and this girl is evil and she needs to be locked away for life.

This.

[creekland]

Actually, what she did is more akin to telling someone who is running out of a burning building to run back in because she wants him dead.

 

When Conrad Roy panicked and tried to get out of the truck, she berated him and ordered him to get back in, and then listened on her phone while he died. The judge made it very clear that it was that particular act that led to her conviction. She knew that at that moment he did NOT want to die, but she made him get back in because she wanted him to die — she had already told some people that he had died and felt she would be humiliated if it turned out to be untrue.

 

She absolutely knew that what she did was wrong and that she would be in serious trouble if she was found out; that is not the mindset of a mentally ill person who doesn't understand the ramifications of what she's doing. There is no diminished capacity here.

 

I'm with you (and others) believing she absolutely deserved a guilty verdict and hope she gets a major sentence out of it.  She knew what she was doing and someone died because of her actions.

 

I also believe those who send lewd texts, esp when they are unwanted, should receive the same penalties flashers do.  Just because it's on a phone makes no difference to me.

[HomeAgain]

These are the types of cases that make me wonder about our justice department.

 

There is something horribly wrong with a minor who urges someone to kill themselves.  Imprisoning her isn't justice or creating a better society.  She's still a minor, and there is still something wrong with her.  Justice would have been intensive therapy and strict parole, but that opens a new can of worms about the lack of mental health facilities in our country and access to them.  Prison is so much cheaper, feels good because *something* was done, and makes money for the profiteers who now run the facilities.

[Ravin]

These are the types of cases that make me wonder about our justice department.

 

There is something horribly wrong with a minor who urges someone to kill themselves. Imprisoning her isn't justice or creating a better society. She's still a minor, and there is still something wrong with her. Justice would have been intensive therapy and strict parole, but that opens a new can of worms about the lack of mental health facilities in our country and access to them. Prison is so much cheaper, feels good because *something* was done, and makes money for the profiteers who now run the facilities.

She hasn't been sentenced yet. Prison is possible, but 20 years unlikely. More likely, a short prison term with a long probation tail and ordered treatment.

[Sneezyone]

These are the types of cases that make me wonder about our justice department.

 

There is something horribly wrong with a minor who urges someone to kill themselves.  Imprisoning her isn't justice or creating a better society.  She's still a minor, and there is still something wrong with her.  Justice would have been intensive therapy and strict parole, but that opens a new can of worms about the lack of mental health facilities in our country and access to them.  Prison is so much cheaper, feels good because *something* was done, and makes money for the profiteers who now run the facilities.

 

There is something horribly wrong with EVERY child who kills. That's never stopped us from locking kids up before. What so sympathetic about this girl?

[MinivanMom]

...

Edited June 30, 2017 by MinivanMom

[lavender's green]

Interesting to see how this played out. I remember reading about it and discussing it with friends when it was first reported a few years ago. The thing is, I know people who get...I dunno...a power trip, or sick entertainment, or something, by being close to mental illness or suicide. They treat it like it's a game or their very own reality TV show, and other people are actors who can be written in or out according to their whim and how much emotion they think they can generate from the audience. They're messed-up people who have their own mental health issues going on, yet they have free will, and they have control over who they're nasty or nice to. I've had the impression, when talking with people like this, that I was part of a play but hadn't been handed a script. I wanted to scream "where's the audience?!" It's uncanny. Okay, coming off my soapbox now. Maybe this girl isn't like this at all, but her behavior struck a chord with my past experiences.

 

I don't yet have an opinion about the ruling. Mental health services in this country are in tatters and even mentally well teenagers can say and do atrociously dumb things. I guess in my perfect world she'd be spending many years in an in-patient state facility. Don't even get me started on cell phones and TV, though.

[HomeAgain]

There is something horribly wrong with EVERY child who kills. That's never stopped us from locking kids up before. What so sympathetic about this girl?

I believe the phrase "types of cases" was used in my post, which kept the post on topic (this case) and brought in my feelings about the justice system in general, and more exact, minors who kill. 

 

How does that translate to a singular sympathetic feeling for *this* minor?  I'd also venture to wager that if I looked at my past thoughts on this forum regarding the justice system, the same frustrations would come out on our lack of attempt to rehabilitate and an overwhelming Christian population that is more friendly with the code of Hammurabi than the code of Christ.  We like retribution.  We like tidy endings to scandalous stories where minors have their names blasted across the internet to follow them for the rest of their lives.  We like to shut the door and be winners in the Highest Percentage Of A Population Incarcerated in the world competition.  Winners!!

 

Yes, I think there are a lot of grave wrongs here. Not the least of which is the fact that words have been given a dangerous power in the eye of the law.  If that were the case 20 years ago, Andrea Yates' husband would have been on trial for his personal selfishness at the expense of his wife's mental state.

 

Please excuse my lack of faith in justice being done.  But don't insult me by thinking this is a drive by sympathy card.

 

[SKL]

I haven't followed the case at all, but I understand why it would be disturbing on all sides.

 

I agree that young people say stupid things sometimes, and we do need to consider their state of mind.  The facts in this case are one thing, the precedent set by a murder verdict is another.  While all children know it is "wrong" to say "go kill yourself," they don't understand that it's more wrong than saying a lot of other things that aren't crimes.  Also, where is the line drawn - do you have to actually say "kill yourself" to be convicted of murder, or is it enough to say "you are ugly and stupid" when you know the person is depressed, if that's the last thing they hear before they commit suicide?  This thought process could go on all day.  I'm sure lots of lawyers and law students will be writing articles along these lines shortly.

 

When I was in grad school, for some reason the words "go die" were sometimes used jokingly instead of "shut up."  I said this to someone who was giving me a hard time (all in a friendly situation) and another person said, "what if the person was feeling suicidal when you said that, and then went and acted on it?"  It had honestly not occurred to me.  I did stop saying it, but my point is that people say things they don't literally mean all the time.  I am constantly reminding myself not to say things I don't mean around my kids, things my mom use to say when I was little, e.g. "I'm gonna kill myself" / "I wanna die."

 

If you think about it, there are various joking phrases out there that literally mean "kill yourself."  "Take a long walk off a short pier."  "Jump in the lake 3 times and come up twice."  You all can probably think of other examples.  Mostly they just mean "shut up."

 

I didn't know there were so many young people going around telling others to kill themselves (not jokingly).  I guess we as parents and other caretakers / influencers need to talk to our kids about this.  But the best parents can't completely prevent their kids from saying and doing stupid things.

[SKL]

I also think it's important to be clear... she was not bullying him in the classic sense. She was his girlfriend. They met because they were both profoundly messed up kids who were both dealing with serious depression. He spoke to her about suicide often - and like many mentally ill people, she came to believe, in part because of him, that it was something that would free him from his depression. Obviously, that's screwed up. But she was screwed up. And she was a child at the time. Her very disturbed, twisted motivation was not to hurt him or take pleasure in his suffering. The exact opposite. She thought she was helping him stop suffering.

 

I'm not saying there should be no consequences. But manslaughter? And 20 years in prison? I don't think that fits the crime. And I'm concerned about the legal precedent it sets.

 

So she was being a sort of amateur Dr. Kevorkian?

This is an interesting comment, because honestly, I am sure this happens a lot, especially with older people.  It is wrong, but is it murder ....

[ErinE]

CONTENT WARNING: Here's a case where an 18-year old boy encouraged a 16-year girl to commit suicide. Do you think he should be charged with a crime? There are big differences: he's physically there, he assists, he films. But in the end, she decides to commit the act. He just doesn't stop her. Do his texts sent before and after change your mind? Should he go free? 

 

At what point does inciting someone to commit suicide become a crime? Never?

 

Even if the accused is physically present? Remotely present by phone? Watching through a video feed?

 

How many people can someone like Carter "help" through suicide before her actions are a crime? Five? Three? Two? None? If it requires multiple incidents to convince you it's a crime, why isn't the first act criminal as well?

 

The phone call is the key issue for me. It makes her remotely there, with ability, though small, to change his actions. Which she does. She urges him to get back in the car and he does. This isn't to take away her boyfriends own responsibility for his death, but that's why it's a manslaughter conviction, not murder.

 

I don't think she should be locked away for life. She seems like she needs help, just like the eighteen year old in the story linked needs help. But I think that she stepped from indirect, but not criminal causes of his death (texts encouraging suicide) to a direct, criminal cause of his death (being on the phone, while he was in the car, telling him to go back in).

Edited June 28, 2017 by ErinE

[Sneezyone]

I believe the phrase "types of cases" was used in my post, which kept the post on topic (this case) and brought in my feelings about the justice system in general, and more exact, minors who kill. 

 

How does that translate to a singular sympathetic feeling for *this* minor?  I'd also venture to wager that if I looked at my past thoughts on this forum regarding the justice system, the same frustrations would come out on our lack of attempt to rehabilitate and an overwhelming Christian population that is more friendly with the code of Hammurabi than the code of Christ.  We like retribution.  We like tidy endings to scandalous stories where minors have their names blasted across the internet to follow them for the rest of their lives.  We like to shut the door and be winners in the Highest Percentage Of A Population Incarcerated in the world competition.  Winners!!

 

Yes, I think there are a lot of grave wrongs here. Not the least of which is the fact that words have been given a dangerous power in the eye of the law.  If that were the case 20 years ago, Andrea Yates' husband would have been on trial for his personal selfishness at the expense of his wife's mental state.

 

Please excuse my lack of faith in justice being done.  But don't insult me by thinking this is a drive by sympathy card.

 

I have lots of problems with juvenile justice but my post was far more general than you in particular. My question was related to why this kid gets a thread and so many other (far more sympathetic) perps do not. She told a kid to get back in a car knowing it would kill him. How is that different than yelling fire in a crowded theater (which is not protected speech)? Her words were likely to cause the death or injury of another. That's not benign speech.

Edited June 28, 2017 by Sneezyone

[bethben]

She should not be allowed to just go free, but the possibility of a long prison sentence seems not right either.  I guess it's the fairly new thing about how our conversations and actions are now recorded and able to be used in a court of law.  I'm sure in the past this has happened verbally but was never able to be proven.  Yes, teens say stupid things and may mean nothing by them.  Like those examples of texts above texting other teens to "just go kill yourself".   It is a stupid stupid off handed remark, but could those texts be admissible in a court of law as accusatory?  I guess the thing is that teen stupid behavior and speech has never been able to be documented.  New guidelines need to be thought out about technology.  It seems like it's jumping ahead of us a bit.

[goldberry]

 

 

Regarding this case causing parent's to limit their teen's interactions with mentally troubled teens out of fear...

 

I have a very empathetic DD.  She is an awesome friend, to be honest, and reaches out to those who are troubled and on the fringes, so to speak.  I have regularly discussed boundaries with her, and how she is also a young person herself, who cannot fix others or solve all problems.  I also keep an eye on things, and since she talks to me regularly I make sure to check in that she is not getting in over her head.  Might she get in over her head?  Yeah, of course.  And I can't stop that because I can't change her basic personality which is tremendously empathetic and open hearted.  I fear her getting hurt and dragged down herself.

 

But I never have an inkling of fear that she could ever act in a way this girl did.  NEVER.  There are no circumstances I could imagine where she would encourage someone to kill themselves.  Whatever other mistakes she might make or outcomes I fear, that is not one that I worry about.  And honestly, I don't think parents of most teens worry about it or have to worry about it.   

 

 

:grouphug:  to you for all you have been through.  

[Corraleno]

My greatest fear is that this conviction will lead parents to limit their teen's contact with other teens who struggle with mental illness. This conviction will create fear - fear that your child could be blamed in the event that things go downhill. Who would want their own child mixed up in that? I fear that this could easily lead to a situation where those struggling with mental illness are even more isolated than before.

 

The only parents who should fear the consequences of this conviction are those whose children are bullying fellow teens, urging them to kill themselves, and assisting in their deaths. We can only hope that those parents limit their teen's contact with others, and that those teens adjust their behavior in light of this ruling. "Isolating" mentally ill teens from those who wish them dead is a good thing.

 

Parents of children who are kind and compassionate, who would urge a suicidal friend to get help instead of helping them die, have nothing to fear.

[wonderchica]

These are the types of cases that make me wonder about our justice department.

 

There is something horribly wrong with a minor who urges someone to kill themselves. Imprisoning her isn't justice or creating a better society. She's still a minor, and there is still something wrong with her. Justice would have been intensive therapy and strict parole, but that opens a new can of worms about the lack of mental health facilities in our country and access to them. Prison is so much cheaper, feels good because *something* was done, and makes money for the profiteers who now run the facilities.

She was minor when she urged him to kill himself. She isn't now, she's now 20.

[freeindeed]

I am diagnosed with major depressive disorder, and I spent a week in a psychiatric hospital this past January for a suicide attempt. I completely agree with the verdict. She coerced a suicidal person into going ahead and killing himself when he was having second thoughts and no longer wanted to do it. The night I tried to kill myself, my husband came in and stopped me. If, instead, he had stood there and yelled at me to go ahead and do it, then he would be partially responsible. As a suicidal person you are already unstable, and then if you have a person basically cheering you on and convincing you that it's what you really want to do, then it would be really difficult not to go ahead and follow through with it. The biggest factor for me in this situation that convinces me of her guilt is the fact that he told her he was having second thoughts and did not want to go through with the suicide, but then she told him that he was a coward if he didn't go through with it and that it was what he really wanted to do. This leads me to believe that he might not have gone through with it if it had not been for her texts.

[Farrar]

I have lots of problems with juvenile justice but my post was far more general than you in particular. My question was related to why this kid gets a thread and so many other (far more sympathetic) perps do not. She told a kid to get back in a car knowing it would kill him. How is that different than yelling fire in a crowded theater (which is not protected speech)? Her words were likely to cause the death or injury of another. That's not benign speech.

 

I think she got a thread because her case was unusual and it's been talked about as having set a precedent for future cases. Other cases are often worse miscarriages of justice (just, so routinely... I agree, sadly) but are unfortunately common. We become inured. Not cool, but also understandable. :( Honestly though, I'm sure the fact that they're middle class white kids is part of why it's gotten so much attention... and probably why anyone even looked so closely at her role in the first place. I'm sure class is a big part of all the attention. :(

 

I think what she did is different from yelling fire in a crowded theater. He begged her to help him be strong. She came to believe this was right by getting into this bubble with him. It's so screwed up in so many ways. But I object to the idea that she was a cruel bully. But I think some sort of harassment statute would make more sense than manslaughter. Even if she had been a bully, where does harassment end and actions begin? I'm not comfortable with a lot of things about the way she was convicted.

[MinivanMom]

.. 

 

Edited June 30, 2017 by MinivanMom

[Mimm]

Even though I think  I understand the legal technicalities and issues that make this conviction questionable, I personally feel fine about it. She was horrible. There should be consequences for what she did. 

 

:iagree: :iagree: :iagree:

 

I'm comfortable with the notion of holding someone legally responsible for killing someone with their words. This isn't a random internet comment "U don't like Best Band Evr?? Go kill urself!" She repeatedly urged and talked him through exactly what the plan was and when he was trying to change his mind, she convinced him not to. She's a murderer.

[creekland]

The biggest factor for me in this situation that convinces me of her guilt is the fact that he told her he was having second thoughts and did not want to go through with the suicide, but then she told him that he was a coward if he didn't go through with it and that it was what he really wanted to do. This leads me to believe that he might not have gone through with it if it had not been for her texts.

 

I agree with you 100%.  It's like he was standing on a ledge, then backing away from it, and she pushed him off.  I see no difference in that push being verbal in this situation vs if she'd been there with him and held the door closed.  Her intent was as obvious as it's going to get - esp with her wanting the texts erased so folks wouldn't know.

 

She likely is mentally "off," but there needs to be a "Guilty, with Insanity Involved" rather than "Innocent due to Insanity."  There should be help offered, but punishment of some sort also needs to happen when there's something this significant wrong with what happened.  It's not like she stole a loaf of bread.  She did a big part to end a life and it wasn't a mercy killing.

[EMS83]

I'm not shocked by how nasty teens are to each other or the depths of trouble they get into, and it still terrifies me for my own kids.

[Scarlett]

I am diagnosed with major depressive disorder, and I spent a week in a psychiatric hospital this past January for a suicide attempt. I completely agree with the verdict. She coerced a suicidal person into going ahead and killing himself when he was having second thoughts and no longer wanted to do it. The night I tried to kill myself, my husband came in and stopped me. If, instead, he had stood there and yelled at me to go ahead and do it, then he would be partially responsible. As a suicidal person you are already unstable, and then if you have a person basically cheering you on and convincing you that it's what you really want to do, then it would be really difficult not to go ahead and follow through with it. The biggest factor for me in this situation that convinces me of her guilt is the fact that he told her he was having second thoughts and did not want to go through with the suicide, but then she told him that he was a coward if he didn't go through with it and that it was what he really wanted to do. This leads me to believe that he might not have gone through with it if it had not been for her texts.

 

 

 

((((hugs))))

[DesertBlossom]

I agree with you 100%. It's like he was standing on a ledge, then backing away from it, and she pushed him off.

Except that what she did wasn't like pushing him off. She continued to urge him to "jump" but she didn't push.

 

I think the whole thing is just really sad and agree with others that she probably needs more mental health care than she does a prison sentence.