-
-
I think this is an interesting case, with a technological twist. She knew he was suicidal, encouraged him to kill himself, and kept silent about his death after she'd heard his last breaths via phone. She is guilty of something, certainly, but was her behavior direct enough to count as manslaughter?
Such a waste of two young lives.Pat D. https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...rt/reading.gif
---------------
Von Konigswald: Jack the Ripper plays shuffleboard. -- Happy Birthday, Wanda June by Kurt Vonnegut, c.1970.
--------------- -
Hello Pat,
You are quite right that it is indeed an interesting case. What the woman did is beyond belief but ultimately it was the decision of the boy himself that caused his death. The implications here are enormous.
c.d.Comment
-
Well the system thought it was enought to count as manslaughter I think her failure to act was the straw.Originally posted by Pcdunn View PostG U T
There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Comment
-
I've got very mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, I hold suicide to be a very basic human right (it's how I intend to die when it's time, assuming nothing unexpected happens first), so that if someone does wish to kill himself, I don't think there's any duty of a bystander to stop him. I think the Commonwealth of Massachusetts agrees with me in this.
The problem here is that I don't think he really wanted to die, and I think everyone else pretty much agrees with that. She talked him into doing something he didn't want to, something that has irrevocable consequences. So, should that be a crime?
She didn't stand to make any tangible profit from it, nor did she (I think), tell him any lies, so I can't really see it as a confidence crime. I suppose what it comes closest to is abusing a position of trust. I'm sure that a crime has been committed, and that it ought to carry a substantial punishment, but I'm not at all sure that manslaughter is what that crime should be. In American law, at least, manslaughter is a reckless act that results in an unintended, but reasonably foreseeable, death. This wasn't that.
However, given that the prosecution was able to make a successful case for manslaughter, and given that the victim's death obviously helped to gratify her desire to be seen as bereaved, I wonder that the DA didn't go on to argue for "depraved indifference", which elevates manslaughter to murder? I think he had an open and shut case for it. I wonder how much he believed it was really manslaughter?- GingerComment
-
I always thought the main difference between manslaughter and murder was intent to kill. She certainly had intent. However, given that the prosecution went for manslaughter probably shows how difficult a murder conviction would have been to achieve. Probably the right decision by the prosecution as well as the Jury (says me, who hasn't actually bothered to read any of the evidence....
)
Comment
-
Intent would be hard to prove.Originally posted by Svensson View PostI always thought the main difference between manslaughter and murder was intent to kill. She certainly had intent. However, given that the prosecution went for manslaughter probably shows how difficult a murder conviction would have been to achieve. Probably the right decision by the prosecution as well as the Jury (says me, who hasn't actually bothered to read any of the evidence.... )G U T
There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true. Comment
-
I've been arguing this case with friends since the beginning. While I agree this chick is a foul piece of work, it gets even more complicated when you consider that they charged and convicted her of INVOLUNTARY manslaughter.
Considering Involuntary manslaughter is killing someone without HAVING intent to do so, how do you contort the law to make it fit this scenario?? So she talked him into killing himself, but had no actual intent for him to die?
This is a case where people so strongly condemn what she did, they WANT it to be criminal, but unfortunately it's just not, and they bent the law out of all shape to make it fit.
Let all Oz be agreed;
I need a better class of flying monkeys.Comment
-
I couldn't agree more!!! is she a piece of s**t...probably...but what she did is immoral not illegal....and seriously.....INVOLUNTARY manslaughter is just wrong....but I guess they figured that they could get a jury to agree to...because the jury are not legal experts...sadly, her defense did a BAD job of explaining to them the meaning of the term...or maybe they just didn't care and Ally is right, they just wanted to convict even if they legally shouldn't have....I know many people say who cares she is getting what she deserves, but what this does is make a legal precedent which can be used to abuse the system!!Originally posted by Ally View Post
Steadmund Brand"The truth is what is, and what should be is a fantasy. A terrible, terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago."- Lenny BruceComment
-
Originally posted by Steadmund Brand View Post
Oh it's far more horrifying than you can imagine. She wasn't tried by a jury. She waived a jury trial and it was a strict conviction by a JUDGE. A JUDGE looked at this bullshit and found her guilty. Which honestly pisses me off any more. Her defense did the right thing in putting this before a judge thinking a judge would see that it was a bullshit trumped up charge ...and the judge went with emotion instead of law.
Honestly this trial was a freaking travesty. I would completely understand if the boys parents and family beat the living **** out of her and honestly, if I were on THAT jury I probably wouldn't convict, but the fact that a judge looked at this and went... yeah, involuntary manslaughter, that's the ticket. She talked him into dying, but didn't intend him to die....? Er, what now?
If this isn't overturned on appeal, let's just all move to Russia. Law has no meaning any more. Why bother pretending that it does....
Let all Oz be agreed;
I need a better class of flying monkeys.Comment
-
I would say something like this HAS to be overturned by a higher court.... but I'm not that naïve.....but I spent many, many years of my life trying to get the Lenny Bruce verdict overturned in NY ( we finally succeed but only after massive "celebrity" intervention) so I know how the "higher" courts can be.....Originally posted by Ally View Post
Steadmund Brand"The truth is what is, and what should be is a fantasy. A terrible, terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago."- Lenny BruceComment
-
shes a total scumbag. but the saying "if I told you to jump off a bridge, would you do it?" comes to mind."Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"
-Edgar Allan Poe
"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."
-Frederick G. AbberlineComment
-
Sentence is 15 months (suspended during appeals) and probation. Frikkin' for real?
Pat D. https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...rt/reading.gif
---------------
Von Konigswald: Jack the Ripper plays shuffleboard. -- Happy Birthday, Wanda June by Kurt Vonnegut, c.1970.
---------------Comment
-
It's more complicated than that. For several months, he threatened to commit suicide and she tried to convince him not. I guess there was a breaking point where she turned sociopath.Originally posted by Pcdunn View PostIs it progress when a cannibal uses a fork?
- Stanislaw Jerzy LeeComment
-
For me the critical part of this event was when he decided NOT to kill himself. He, I believe, even exited the truck and was trying to breathe and she talked him into going BACK into the truck to die. For me, this is the point where she becomes directly responsible for his death. I don't for a minute believe this was manslaughter, this was murder. She was absolutely aware that her actions would result in his death and she did it anyway.Comment
Tweet
Comment