3 ms·

>> There's no good coming out of this case whatsoever. Would you mind explaining this further? I'm not sure I understand your position from your comments.

didibus 9y ago
I won't pretend to know all the details, but I ask myself questions like: 1) How can we prevent this from happening again? 2) What kind of relief will this provide to the relatives? 3) How will it help rehabilitate the girl herself, so that her future contributions are positive and not even more negative? 4) What was or would have been best for the victim? 5) Who else is responsible for the situation? 6) What was the true causes that led to the death? And I don't feel like this case is answering any of these questions, trying to prevent recurrences, or support the people who are affected by the event. It's almost too complicated an issue, with too many layers and levels of indirection, reliability and blame. If we truly want to address the root cause, we'll need something much more thorough. At this point, I feel it probably will only work as a scape goat, allowing relatives to believe the boy had no issue, and that he would have managed to overcome and live a happy life if it wasn't for her, taking some of their guilt away and towards her. Are they right, we'll never know, but for sure other people could be argued to have also indirectly contributed to involuntary manslaughter, people who might have played a role with the original causes of depression and suicidal thoughts that led to him engaging in such a relationship in the first place and triggered the events that followed.
- k-mcgrady 9y ago
  Thanks for explaining further. I see your points but I'd add one which I'd argue is an important (though obviously not the only) goal of the law - punishment/deterrence. If the girl committed the acts while also experiencing metal health problems that needs to be taken into consideration (maybe mandatory mental health treatment or something rather than prison) but at the end of the day she contributed significantly to a vulnerable person losing their life so she will have to lose her own freedom for a period of time in some way. I think that would satisfy the victims relatives to some degree. As for the 'true causes that led the the death' that seems pretty obvious to me from the facts - she was the cause. He had stepped off the ledge so to speak and if she hadn't intervened and told him to get back in the car it's likely he wouldn't have died that day. When considering her guilt that's all that matters. Why the victim was suicidal in the first place is irrelevant to establishing her part in the incident.
  - didibus 9y ago
    What activity is this even trying to deter? Assisted suicide? Bullying? Texting? And how does it do so? From the ruling, it seems the judge did not take anything into consideration except for the messages and inactions directly related to the incident. I understand why he didn't, legally speaking, because it's way too complicated if you do so. How can you reason about 2 years of exchanges in which he clearly expresses suicidal thoughts and toys with the idea of death to a teenage girl who herself struggles with these same issues and is under active antidepressants? I don't feel like it's obvious at all what the true cause is. She's spent more time and sent him more messages trying to deter him from committing suicide and pushing him to seek help prior to her assisting in his suicide attempt. Yet it seems that didn't do anything to help his depression. In his suicide note he thank her for all her support, and for being there for him and helping him. To me, him being suicidal is at the heart of it. She didn't make him suicidal. And if we could find who or what is responsible for him being suicidal in the first place, then wouldn't those who or what be even more responsible for his death? You could also claim he's made her assist him. He basically spent 2 years promoting to her the idea that he should do it, actively seeking her support in it. To me, that's as far fetched as what she's accused of. As soon as you make a conclusion from the premise that your words were the cause of someone's elses actions, you enter a realm of uncertainty, because we don't understand those psychological mechanism at all. They run deep, wide and complex. Yes, she's assisted him in his suicide, that's undeniable, to call that involuntary manslaughter is questionable. Suicide is illegal, and that's questionable too. Assisted suicide is also illegal, that's also questionable. The grounds for crime are fuzzy, but you're right, given the law and situation, she contributed, at least by making it easier for him. So I'm not objecting with the ruling, or anything like that. I feel more like we're just failing as a whole. Failing to prevent depression, failing to support it, failing to discuss it openly, failing to deal with it, failing to understand it, etc. And I don't see this court case improving on any of it. In fact, it might make it worse, by complicating an already complicated situation.
    - qb45 9y ago
      The note: https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2017/06/13/read-the-suicide-note-conrad-roy-left-for-michelle-carter https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2017/06/13/read-the-s... FWIW, the law seems to be against her in this case: the court ruling quotes a precedent where people were sentenced for playing Russian roulette because one of them died. I think it's idiotic but that's what there is.
tdfx 9y ago
I believe he's saying that this girl deserved punishment but the act of punishing her sets a dangerous precedent that may be twisted or abused in unforeseen ways later on.
- qb45 9y ago
  In addition, she was on antidepressants so it's not clear what exactly her mental state was, she probably had some reasons to take them. And her defense argued that the drugs may have affected her actions, fwiw of course. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40304433 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40304433

didibus 9y ago

I won't pretend to know all the details, but I ask myself questions like: 1) How can we prevent this from happening again? 2) What kind of relief will this provide to the relatives? 3) How will it help rehabilitate the girl herself, so that her future contributions are positive and not even more negative? 4) What was or would have been best for the victim? 5) Who else is responsible for the situation? 6) What was the true causes that led to the death? And I don't feel like this case is answering any of these questions, trying to prevent recurrences, or support the people who are affected by the event. It's almost too complicated an issue, with too many layers and levels of indirection, reliability and blame. If we truly want to address the root cause, we'll need something much more thorough. At this point, I feel it probably will only work as a scape goat, allowing relatives to believe the boy had no issue, and that he would have managed to overcome and live a happy life if it wasn't for her, taking some of their guilt away and towards her. Are they right, we'll never know, but for sure other people could be argued to have also indirectly contributed to involuntary manslaughter, people who might have played a role with the original causes of depression and suicidal thoughts that led to him engaging in such a relationship in the first place and triggered the events that followed.

k-mcgrady 9y ago
Thanks for explaining further. I see your points but I'd add one which I'd argue is an important (though obviously not the only) goal of the law - punishment/deterrence. If the girl committed the acts while also experiencing metal health problems that needs to be taken into consideration (maybe mandatory mental health treatment or something rather than prison) but at the end of the day she contributed significantly to a vulnerable person losing their life so she will have to lose her own freedom for a period of time in some way. I think that would satisfy the victims relatives to some degree. As for the 'true causes that led the the death' that seems pretty obvious to me from the facts - she was the cause. He had stepped off the ledge so to speak and if she hadn't intervened and told him to get back in the car it's likely he wouldn't have died that day. When considering her guilt that's all that matters. Why the victim was suicidal in the first place is irrelevant to establishing her part in the incident.
- didibus 9y ago
  What activity is this even trying to deter? Assisted suicide? Bullying? Texting? And how does it do so? From the ruling, it seems the judge did not take anything into consideration except for the messages and inactions directly related to the incident. I understand why he didn't, legally speaking, because it's way too complicated if you do so. How can you reason about 2 years of exchanges in which he clearly expresses suicidal thoughts and toys with the idea of death to a teenage girl who herself struggles with these same issues and is under active antidepressants? I don't feel like it's obvious at all what the true cause is. She's spent more time and sent him more messages trying to deter him from committing suicide and pushing him to seek help prior to her assisting in his suicide attempt. Yet it seems that didn't do anything to help his depression. In his suicide note he thank her for all her support, and for being there for him and helping him. To me, him being suicidal is at the heart of it. She didn't make him suicidal. And if we could find who or what is responsible for him being suicidal in the first place, then wouldn't those who or what be even more responsible for his death? You could also claim he's made her assist him. He basically spent 2 years promoting to her the idea that he should do it, actively seeking her support in it. To me, that's as far fetched as what she's accused of. As soon as you make a conclusion from the premise that your words were the cause of someone's elses actions, you enter a realm of uncertainty, because we don't understand those psychological mechanism at all. They run deep, wide and complex. Yes, she's assisted him in his suicide, that's undeniable, to call that involuntary manslaughter is questionable. Suicide is illegal, and that's questionable too. Assisted suicide is also illegal, that's also questionable. The grounds for crime are fuzzy, but you're right, given the law and situation, she contributed, at least by making it easier for him. So I'm not objecting with the ruling, or anything like that. I feel more like we're just failing as a whole. Failing to prevent depression, failing to support it, failing to discuss it openly, failing to deal with it, failing to understand it, etc. And I don't see this court case improving on any of it. In fact, it might make it worse, by complicating an already complicated situation.
  - qb45 9y ago
    The note: https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2017/06/13/read-the-suicide-note-conrad-roy-left-for-michelle-carter https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2017/06/13/read-the-s... FWIW, the law seems to be against her in this case: the court ruling quotes a precedent where people were sentenced for playing Russian roulette because one of them died. I think it's idiotic but that's what there is.

tdfx 9y ago

I believe he's saying that this girl deserved punishment but the act of punishing her sets a dangerous precedent that may be twisted or abused in unforeseen ways later on.

qb45 9y ago
In addition, she was on antidepressants so it's not clear what exactly her mental state was, she probably had some reasons to take them. And her defense argued that the drugs may have affected her actions, fwiw of course. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40304433 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40304433