On Tuesday, in her closing argument, Bristol County District Attorney Katie Rayburn said that "the risk Carter created was reckless and amounts to involuntary manslaughter." In the age of people falling "in love via the Internet and via text," the prosecutor said that "you can encourage someone to die via text, and you can commit a crime via text."
This case is very significant for free speech. It shows that you can be charged and convicted of manslaughter if you use the wrong words with someone who is emotionally unstable. I think Michelle Carter did not handle herself or this situation in the appropriate way but she could get 20 years in prison (longer than she has been alive).
If this case sets a precedent then it sets a new limit on free speech. You cannot tell a person to "kill yourself" because if they actually do it then you might get locked up. And if a person asks you to help them go through with a suicide and you talk them through it you can also get arrested, charged, and convicted.
You made some great comments on a new limitation on free speech. I definitely agree that she could have handled herself better. The results of this case is in away saying that words can be used as a weapon. This conviction besides having an effect on free speech could also affect end-of-life discussions in different situations.
Exactly, but I didn't go that deep into it.
Yes, that's true though your post made me think deeply about it. It doesn't necessarily take a well thought out reflection, a research paper, or an excellent dissertation on a subject to have an impact. Sometimes a mere sentence or even just a word can lead to insights or epiphanies gained about a subject.
Expect appeals on first amendment grounds, as it didn't fall in any unprotected category of speech. And what you raise about end of life discussions would be a valid attack on the ruling under an overbreadth attack. I believe jerks like these belong to be in prison. As an Autistic person growing up, i had an adult bully nearly kill me by doing everything she could to destroy that one friendship I had developed...and I had to deal with Mob stalking for the rest of my life where the stalkers pretend to be the victim any time I speak up about it.
“From 1791 to the present,” however, the First Amendment has “permitted restrictions upon the content of speech in a few limited areas,” and has never “include[d] a freedom to disregard these traditional limitations.” Id., at 382–383. These “historic and traditional categories long familiar to the bar,” Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of N. Y. State Crime Victims Bd., 502 U. S. 105, 127 (1991) (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment)—including obscenity, Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, 483 (1957), defamation, Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U. S. 250, 254–255 (1952), fraud, Virginia Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U. S. 748, 771 (1976), incitement, Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U. S. 444, 447–449 (1969) (per curiam), and speech integral to criminal conduct, Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U. S. 490, 498 (1949)—are “well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem.” Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568, 571–572 (1942).
United States v. Stevens 559 U.S. 460 (2010)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/559/460/opinion.html
The Court upheld the statute on the ground that, without more, "advocating" violent means to effect political and economic change involves such danger to the security of the State that the State may outlaw it. Cf. Fiske v. Kansas, 274 U. S. 380 (1927). But Whitney has been thoroughly discredited by later decisions. See Dennis v. United States, 341 U. S. 494, at 341 U. S. 507 (1951). These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.
Brandenburg v. Ohio 395 U.S. 444 (1969)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/444/case.html
The Government argued in Stevens that lack of a historical warrant did not matter; that it could create new categories of unprotected speech by applying a “simple balancing test” that weighs the value of a particular category of speech against its social costs and then punishes that category of speech if it fails the test. Stevens, 559 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 7). We emphatically rejected that “startling and dangerous” proposition. Ibid. “Maybe there are some categories of speech that have been historically unprotected, but have not yet been specifically identified or discussed as such in our case law.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 9). But without persuasive evidence that a novel restriction on content is part of a long (if heretofore unrecognized) tradition of proscription, a legislature may not revise the “judgment [of] the American people,” embodied in the First Amendment, “that the benefits of its restrictions on the Government outweigh the costs.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 7).
Brown, et al. v. Entertainment Merchants Assn. et al. 564 U.S. 786 (2011)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/564/786/opinion.html
Do jerks really belong in prison or should prison be for people truly dangerous to others and to society? There is a reason the United States is overflowing with prisoners. In the United States apparently the majority of people think the majority of people belong in prison for something or at least the laws reflect that attitude.
Even if we can agree punishment is necessary, does anyone win if she gets 20 years in prison? Her life gets destroyed and it doesn't bring him back. So what is gained?
Trying to protect these murders under your arguments could be said for most murderers, and if that still be your approach then justice would return to vigilantism.
Yes, they do belong in Prison, and to be honest they deserve the death penalty. Actual Suicide, provided it wasn't an attention attempt gone wrong, is mostly the escape from pain. Some have said that hell is a place where you are in so much pain that you try to kill yourself, but you can't. Victims of bullying can be religious too and driven to that point, but religiously can't commit suicide and thus trapped on a hell on earth. How many years of futile prayer can one go which adds on a second layer of harm through acknowledgement of being abandonment by God too?
When you are subjected to mob stalking, it affects can last decades and totally decimates a persons education, social, and career opportunities. After the targets of bullying are the Autistic, which includes Auspies. Aspies have multiple copies of the SHANK3 gene which tends to makes the brighter than most people: so the harm done very well could mean causing the person who could cure cancer (or other great feat) to: lose his life, lose his academics, and/or lose his career prospects, and all that he could do had all those been kept intact. The government has a duty to protect our life, liberty, and estate. Decades of lost income from people who if they weren't so heavily abused would be in the highest highest tax bracket. I have been tortured many times in my life, including being kidnapped and being nearly starved to death over the course of a year. If you were to starve an animal so severely, you would be charged with animal cruelty and likely convicted. Of the greatest pain I endured it is the various variables in losing that one friend, as the harm done was literally causing my mind to shut down my heart on multiple occasions, the first time it cost me my first college degree, the second time many years later I lost my ability to walk over the course of 4 months. Putting these thugs in prison deters that others from doing the same, it also means that a victim could step forward while it is just an attempt and send the abuser to prison. My bully happens to be the mother of the friend I lost (who is my age), my burning desire for justice is secondary only to my need of having my friend back.
Many states do permit prosecutions of people who commit emotional distress that causes a person to commit suicide. It is just the level of evidence required to result in a conviction is quite difficult, as the only person that can truly say that it was that other person, and not say depression, that caused to the suicide is now dead and there is no confronting the accuser even if they did leave behind an affidavit. Male victims can be punished for complaining while they are still alive, and so even trying to speak up for help can result in more abuse. They are just expected to suffer more and more until the bully succeeds in killing their victim by their own hand.
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?
manslaughter is what i feel
Times change and in today's society where everyone gets offended my what others say, people have to smart about what they say.
I agree that in this case that Ms. Carter didn't handle herself in the best way possible, but I don't think she should get jail time for a slip of the tongue.
We don't actually know what went on between them. He was suicidal, and she talked him through it. It's not a clear cut situation where she bullied him into being suicidal which is what makes it difficult. If someone wants someone else to assist them in suicide then that someone else should report the person to the authorities (appropriate response) or cease contact with the person.
I don't know how this can result in a conviction this serious. That's just unbelievable. I understand it was very wrong what she did but manslaughter? really