3 ms·

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/de

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.

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.