Do you believe Michelle Carter deserves the death penalty? Also, do you believe justice equates to an eye for an eye?
The death penalty really has nothing to do with protecting anyone's life. It's the government taking a life with due process. It is murder by law, but it's still murder and the constitution only allows for it in cases of treason if I remember right.
I don't think prison makes people smarter. Ignorance is not going to be cured by long prison sentences and if it could be cured by that then we wouldn't have crime anymore since we have the biggest and most populated prisons on earth. The girl in this case was a teenager, and not college educated or exceptionally knowledgeable. There is no evidence that she believed it was wrong, or that society had any law set up to make what she did illegal.
If she was still a minor, then the ICCPR would prohibit giving her the death Penalty. I am not sure if the SCOTUS finally agreed with them or not. I am against eye for an eye as it is being done in the USA, that was just my hatred of my should be mother in law coming out. Though I am ok with eye for an eye, people like James Holmes get life in prison, while those who may be innocent in one death and took their case to trial may be given the death penalty for refusing to plead.
If she didn't know that what she was doing was wrong, then she should have tried for an NGRI. But that is not the case as the courts ruled when she sought an appeal while it was still a juvenile matter or however that works in massachusetts:
http://cases.justia.com/massachusetts/supreme-court/2016-sjc-12043.pdf?ts=1467383517
On a subjective basis, the evidence presented by the Commonwealth showed that the defendant was personally aware that her conduct was both reprehensible and punishable: the defendant asked the victim to delete the text messages between the two of them, deleted several of those messages from her own cellular telephone, and, after police began investigating the victim's cellular telephone, lied about her involvement and told her friend that, if the police uncovered the text messages between her and the victim, she could go to jail. The charge of involuntary manslaughter is not vague as applied to the defendant.
Also the court spell it out previous that what she did was wrong as seen in the below (and while there arguments are sound here for content based regulations: it is not the type of content that the SCOTUS has recognized can be regulated, and; the laws are not narrowly tailored as the victim could have blocked the messenger, her texts, or averted his eyes without the need for government intervention. We have the unprotected categories for a reason, and other content based regulations are presumably invalid) :
The speech at issue in this case is not protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or art. 16 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights because the Commonwealth has a compelling interest in deterring speech that has a direct, causal link to a specific victim's suicide. See Mendoza v. Licensing Bd. of Fall River, 444 Mass. 188, 197 n.12 (2005) (content-based restrictions on expressive conduct must satisfy "strict scrutiny" standard, meaning government must "demonstrate that the restriction is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn to achieve that end" [citation omitted]);
The courts opinion goes further into other decisions, including the below. But Persampieri also engaged in beating and assaults too, not just speech-but the court ruled ignoring that. However the case is quite old, older than the brandenberg v ohio case that defined proscribable advocacy. It is likely, if even considered it at all, they were mindful of Dennis v United states or earlier case laws that used a clear and present danger standard. Clear and present danger is still sometimes invoked to challenge laws and convictions, but is rather deprecated.
In Persampieri, 343 Mass. at 22, ( https://casetext.com/case/persampieri-v-commonwealth#! ) the defendant told his wife that he intended to divorce her. She threatened to commit suicide. Id. The defendant, knowing that the victim had already attempted suicide twice, said she was "chicken -- and wouldn't do it." Id. When she retrieved a .22 caliber rifle, he helped her to load it and handed it to her, noting that the safety was off. Id. With the gun barrel on the floor, the victim struggled to pull the trigger. Id. at 23. The defendant told her that if she took off her shoe she could reach the trigger, at which point she successfully shot and killed herself. Id. We concluded that the jury were warranted in returning a verdict of involuntary manslaughter based on the theory of wanton or reckless conduct, id., noting that the defendant, "instead of trying to bring [the victim] to her senses, taunted her, told her where the gun was, loaded it for her, saw that the safety was off, and told her the means by which she could pull the trigger. He thus showed a reckless disregard of his wife's safety and the possible consequences of his conduct."
The court also went on to say which addresses what the first speaker was saying:
It is important to articulate what this case is not about. It is not about a person seeking to ameliorate the anguish of someone coping with a terminal illness and questioning the value of life. Nor is it about a person offering support, comfort, and even assistance to a mature adult who, confronted with such circumstances, has decided to end his or her life. These situations are easily distinguishable from the present case, in which the grand jury heard evidence suggesting a systematic campaign of coercion on which the virtually present defendant embarked -- captured and preserved through her text messages -- that targeted the equivocating young victim's insecurities and acted to subvert his willpower in favor of her own. On the specific facts of this case, there was sufficient evidence to support a probable cause finding that the defendant's command to the victim in the final moments of his life to follow through on his suicide attempt was a direct, causal link to his death.
As it education, it appears that Boston University may provide it.
http://sites.bu.edu/pep/
It's not clear at all if what she did was illegal but the fact is she was convicted and will be sentenced. Honestly, people her age have said worse stuff to people. People have told others to go kill themselves and it hasn't been a crime until this case. This case sets a precedent in that a text message can get you 20 years in prison.
She should appeal it to the Supreme Court, as she has a good chance of winning on appeal I think, but her life is destroyed either way.
Is this the opinion of the prosecutor? I'm interested in knowing what the jury thought. I am not on the jury so I don't have all the evidence to form a strong opinion but on the surface it looks like they convicted her for her text messages. If she had some coercive influence over him then I would understand the charge but it's not clear she has that from what I've seen. Do you know more about this case and if she had anything she was using to coerce him into suicide or did he intend to commit suicide and she just pushed him to follow through with his own idea?
It's not a simple open and shut case.
Was she educated at Boston University? Did she take a class or two in psychology? It's not true that someone is born knowing how to deal with suicidal threats. People have to go through training on what to do if someone suggests or threatens suicide. I'll have to look deeper into this case to see exactly what happened but I can see certain scenarios where a typical teenager could handle it wrong and be charged.
Here is what I found:
As you can see, the defense on her side says he attempted suicide on his own in the past. The defense also says she tried to talk him out of it in the past. So I would have to be on the jury to see if the defense had evidence supporting that.
There are two sides to this story. It's not clear to me like it is to some that she is some sort of predatory bully who coerced him into suicide. It's very possible that she made bad decisions, and should have ceased contact with him or contacted authorities rather than communicate. At the same time she was on anti-depressants herself so that does reveal something. Of course it is also possible she is unempathic, but that alone isn't to excuse her behavior as with the right knowledge she could have handled the situation in the appropriate manner.
There are truly dangerous people who murder people, who kill on purpose, and then there are tragic accidents and I think this fits into the tragic accident category. I don't feel particularly threatened by her, and don't see 20 years in prison as being sensible, but then you have people who sold drugs who get 20 years in prison and that is not fair either. If she gets prison I don't think that is really going to change anything and think community service where she is made to give talks and teach people how to handle these situations appropriately would be better as it would prevent the next girl or guy in her position from making the wrong decisions. Destroying her life I don't think is going to make the next girl or guy any smarter.
References
We can agree he handled this situation wrong, but can we also agree what she was doing is emotional terrorism and wrong?
Threatening suicide if a person divorces you should be a crime in my opinion. What option does a person have if their partner is constantly using suicide threats as coercion?
Threatening suicide doesn't fall into an unprotected category of speech (though feminist would have us think otherwise), unless say you have certain things strapped to a vest in which case they'd certainly be an imminent threat to themselves and/or others. If they happened demonstrate more than just a suicidal threat, a person may petition the courts to initiate civil commitment procedures. If the court finds they meet the criteria for that particular state then it is off to the funny farm they go.