Guilty verdict in teen suicide trial

[Zan15]

You people are insane you should go jump off a bridge.

Crap...I just became the largest serial murderer since now of course you all are going to kill yourselves.....

Shit..

[dextersmith]

So if someone told you to jump off a bridge ...... using a phone, and you chose to do it ...... they're killers now?

If you didn't, is it attempted murder?

[Sinyc]

Don't agree with the Judge, especially after reading this bit:

- Earlier in the trial, a psychiatrist testified that Carter was delusional after becoming "involuntarily intoxicated" by antidepressants. She was "unable to form intent" after switching to a new prescription drug months before Roy's suicide, and she even texted his phone for weeks after he died, the psychiatrist testified.

That's a horseshit defense and you know it (or at least you should)! Everyone plays the crazy card when something stupid/horrific happens from them acting like a jackass. Own up to your mistakes and horrible life choices and take whatever punishment comes your way.

[cubby]

You were arguing that you couldn't be prosecuted for just speaking, because it wasn't an action. I cited a bunch of examples where that's clearly not true. That's apples to apples.

No, we're arguing that speech isn't an action, under the law. Those examples were of crimes that don't require an action, such as slander. That's apples to motorcycles. Find an example of someone being convicted of a violent crime by their words alone.

And that's using it incorrectly, since the point of Orwell's thoughtcrime had nothing to do with freedom of speech. It was about the manufacturing of charges based on no evidence to imprison potential enemies of the State.

And that's how people use it poorly - they let the wall you point out exist disappear. The slippery slope analogy, however, from speech to thought-crime is there. I'm not understanding how you don't see that. The link, I mean.

[Endus]

Show me how egging someone is an action under the law. Outside this case, of course.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Manson

How is this not clear?

[hrugner]

Here's the law in Massachusetts:

http://statelaws.findlaw.com/massach...e-homicid.html

She clearly intended for the death to occur. So, to call it "involuntary" is disingenuous. It specifically states the following:

"Definition of "unintentionally" The defendant did intend to commit the act that ultimately caused the death of the victim, but the defendant did not intend to actually cause the death itself."

So, is the state realy arguing that she did not expect the result, or intend for the result to be death?

More than likely the state is conceding that proving intent would be difficult and more likely to get bounced between courts before a decision was made and are instead opting for the guaranteed decision that doesn't require intent.

[Deleted]

they decided she did not actually intend for someone to die, but she clearly did.

I'm not /certain/ that's the case.

[KrazyK923]

You people are insane you should go jump off a bridge.

Crap...I just became the largest serial murderer since now of course you all are going to kill yourselves.....

Shit..

that isnt what happened.

[Machismo]

What you just explained is exactly why THIS case is NOT a slippery slope.

If she would have been charged for an intent-based crime here, that would be a slippery slope.

Actually, it's the opposite. She intended for him to die, her texts made that quite clear. By trying to say the outcome was not expected, in order to justify it being an involuntary manslaughter conviction, doesn't make a lot of sense. Voluntary manslaughter makes more sense.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not /certain/ that's the case.

Her texts seemed to show she really wanted him to finally kill himself. Se was rather persistent.

[Tyrianth]

More than likely the state is conceding that proving intent would be difficult and more likely to get bounced between courts before a decision was made and are instead opting for the guaranteed decision that doesn't require intent.

That's most likely the case. Proving intent, beyond a reasonable doubt, can be exceeding difficult.

If I get a heated argument with someone and tell them to go kill themselves, I didn't actually intend for them to do it, it was just a heat of the moment expression. The prosecution most likely felt they didn't have enough evidence for a manslaughter conviction to stick.

[Deleted]

Her texts seemed to show she really wanted him to finally kill himself. Se was rather persistent.

That is our inference. But that wasn't tried.
If they wanted to try for that. They'd charge with murder or something.

[cubby]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Manson

How is this not clear?

Now that would be interesting - if she was charged and convicted of conspiracy to commit manslaughter. And an interesting point overall, the conspiracy aspect of some crimes.

But again, that example isn't what happened here. But you're getting closer in comparisons - that was about apples to oranges.

[Deleted]

A reasonable what?
I'm just open to the possibility that she may have been mentally unstable at the time,

A reasonable doubt.
Your doubt stems from the opinion of a controversial psychiatrist at odds with the mental health establishment.

So again: you're essentially bringing Ken Ham to a dissertation on evolution.

[Machismo]

More than likely the state is conceding that proving intent would be difficult and more likely to get bounced between courts before a decision was made and are instead opting for the guaranteed decision that doesn't require intent.

The only issue is tat it may allow for her to have a stronger appeal. The state will have to weaken its own case, by saying she did not intend for him to die. I could easily see an appeals court tearing this to shreds.

[Machismo]

That is our inference. But that wasn't tried.
If they wanted to try for that. They'd charge with murder or something.

Which may help her if she tries to appeal.

[Endus]

Now that would be interesting - if she was charged and convicted of conspiracy to commit manslaughter. And an interesting point overall, the conspiracy aspect of some crimes.

But again, that example isn't what happened here. But you're getting closer in comparisons - that was about apples to oranges.

The point is that Manson's "actions" were never more than "just speaking". And he was still convicted of first-degree murder, despite never touching any of his victims.

[cubby]

GO yell Bomb in a crowded theatre or subway train and if it causes a panic you are going to jail. Words are actions and can be used against you in the court of law.

Words can be used against you in a court of law. I'm not sure how you think I'm arguing against that. But in violent crimes, words are NOT actions, except (in-so-far-as-I-know) the case we're discussing here.

It sets a new precedent. Which is why I think it will be overturned.

I appreciate that everyone wants this woman in jail. I do too. I'm just looking at the bigger picture, through the legal mind of people who have to review this not for one case, but the law as a precedent. "Hard cases made terrible law."

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. made a utilitarian argument for this in his judgment of Northern Securities Co. v. United States (1904):

Great cases like hard cases make bad law. For great cases are called great, not by reason of their importance... but because of some accident of immediate overwhelming interest which appeals to the feelings and distorts the judgment.

Holmes's dissenting opinion in the case, which applied the Sherman Antitrust Act to the securities company, has been described as a reaction to President Theodore Roosevelt's wish to dramatize the issues of monopolies and trusts.[5]

The legal scholar Glanville Williams questioned the adage's usage in 1957, writing, "It used to be said that 'hard cases make bad law'—a proposition that our less pedantic age regards as doubtful. What is certain is that cases in which the moral indignation of the judge is aroused frequently make bad law." Bryan A. Garner calls the phrase a cliche; while mentioning Williams's disparagement, he asserts that it remains in frequent use, "sometimes unmeaningfully".

[Deleted]

Which may help her if she tries to appeal.

It might.
I'm certainly not knowledgeable enough about the appeal process. But "your honor, you should try me for murder" sounds a bit silly .

[Machismo]

It might.
I'm certainly not knowledgeable enough about the appeal process. But "your honor, you should try me for murder" sounds a bit silly .

Well, in an appeal, the court could simply vacate the ruling, because it was not the proper charge. They wouldn't even need to rule on her actual guilt, merely the actions of the court itself. She would then have to be re-tried at a lower level.

Honestly, I'm surprised this wasn't a jury trial, I have no idea why her lawyer did not push for that.

[BannedForViews]

I think its the correct verdict, she was 17 at the time and not being tried as an adult despite now being 20, so the sentencing shouldn't be unduly harsh.

Im not saying she is guilty of a crime, but I will never understand this reasoning. If you kill someone at 17, why do you deserve any less of a punishment than if you are 20, or 30, or 40. That person is still dead. It is such faulty logic.