Hadn't heard about this. Anyone got a link handy for an article? Voluntary and Involuntary manslaughter laws differ drastically in the wording of the crime from state to state. Here in CA, max penalty is 4 years for involuntary.
It's a slippery slope, for sure.. but if planning a murder (conspiracy) carries a hefty penalty, so should this despicable act. I'm good with the charges in this case. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Just read a Washington Post article. You could argue this for either side depending on the stand you want to take. IMO there are several factors that really played into this case and this case could set a HUGE precedence for law across the country. Our society in general, and much more with teens and young adults, has moved to a cyber world of electronic communication. From the article I read, this was a huge factor in the conviction: In the ruling, the court found that Carter’s “virtual presence” at the time of the suicide and the “constant pressure” she had placed on Roy, who was in a delicate mental state, were enough proof for an involuntary manslaughter charge. Involuntary Manslaughter law MASS: 1) An unlawful killing that was unintentionally caused as the result of the defendants' wanton or reckless conduct. --- I would argue the text messages encouraging the boy to kill himself were wanton and reckless with the girl knowing it would lead to his death. Section 13: Manslaughter; punishment Section 13. Whoever commits manslaughter shall, except as hereinafter provided, be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than twenty years OR by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars and imprisonment in jail or a house of correction for not more than two and one half years. Whoever commits manslaughter while violating the provisions of sections 102 to 102C, inclusive, of chapter 266 shall be imprisoned in the state prison for life or for any term of years. Additionally pay specific attention to the "and" and "or" in the punishment listed above. Just because the max is 20 years doesn't mean she will get 20 years in prison. OR she could get the fine and MAX 2 1/2 years in a county jail. It all depends on how they view the circumstances in the case and how much wanton and reckless conduct she should be held responsible for. Compare the above to the below for Mass: Felony Motor Vehicle Homicide: 2 (two) 1/2-15 years in jail or state prison, fines, and 15 year license revocation. Now if someone wants to play devil's advocate, assisted suicide in Mass is NOT a criminal act. My guess is the defense tried to use this as their foundation. I work in a county jail. There are people who need to be here and will continue to come and go their whole lives. There are also people that make mistakes and will never come back. Some mistakes are worse than others and they have to serve the consequences. Compare the "intent" of this case to a vehicular manslaughter due to DUI with one twist. The DUI driver doesn't specifically intend to kill another motorist on the road, but should understand it could happen when getting behind the wheel. This girl intended for the boy to take his own life encouraging him to kill himself. I think the punishments governed by the state are appropriate, it just depends on what the court feels is a fair punishment for the crime. I don't think 20 years is uncalled for; but I will be surprised if the court feels it justified. WP article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...is-on-trial-this-week/?utm_term=.874d368f8828 Massachusetts law: http://statelaws.findlaw.com/massac...y-manslaughter-and-motor-vehicle-homicid.html
Absolutely agree with the verdict. In fact, I would have liked an even more stiff sentence. Accountability is lacking with this generation.
Times like these I wish they still had the stocks in the public square... Folks, she hasn't been sentenced yet...she could get off easy with probation and a fine. Let's hold off until. "Assisted suicide" would necessitate a request from the deceased. I've not seen anything that indicates he asked for such assistance. My wife suggested a sentence of the violator to stand outside of town hall with a placard which read "my words kill" for 8 hours per day, every day for 1 month for every year of the deceased's age.
I don't feel it does. She's a dirtbag or a heartless little selfish generation x kid. She never assisted in the suicide. She might have verbally encouraged it, but was not present. She couldn't stop him or make him do what he did. If she texted him to stop , he still would have done it. Same outcome. If she was present and didn't try to stop but told him to get back in the car, yep, manslaughter/murder. Either charge is horrific. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Your feelings don't have anything to do with her actions fitting the elements of the offense. They do, so the penalty fits. The law leaves out our feelings.
We have freedom of speech, we do not have freedom of consequences from that speech. Sounds to me like they got this one right.
Show me in any case, and I may be wrong, where by someone saying something is responsible for another persons actions. As humans we have freedom of choice. Sorry, the texter is a young *********. The dead , took his life by choosing death. BS decision in my book. Now 2 kids lives are ruined. Not a fan of this decision because now, all sorts of new cases will be tried. Meanwhile we have a play in NYC where it's. Clearly displaying the assassination of our president and it's called "art". This be the case, this girls lawyers should have claimed the same nonsense and make a mockery of our recently gone PC liberal court system. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
2 kids life wrecked societies fault no....The convicted made zero effort to connect with the males family or authorities, and encouraged him to get back in the cab of the pickup that he had a small engine with the exhaust plumed into the cab, told him to finish it. How is it possible to defend her actions?
Umm.. no "may be" about it; you're wrong. It happens every day. We call it "conspiracy". Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't think she had a responsibility to notify anyone, that would have just been human decency. But to encourage someone to get back into the vehicle and finish it was pretty Kevorkian esque. She took advantage of someone in a mentally ill state and directed them to end their life. She's being treated fairly on this one. Sent from my iPhone using Bowhunting.com Forums
If you yell bomb in a crowded area and people panic and someone is trampled to death, you will be held accountable even though you didn't run or trample.. you just said the words. If you call in/text/write a bomb threat, you can be imprisoned for up to 10 years.... even if no one got hurt. You're responsible for those words. Here in Utah (and probably other states) if we meet on the street or wherever and you say "I'm going to kill you" I can take you at your word and pull out my pistol and legally kill you. Again, just words... but they have meaning and intent. "I have this thing and it's F'ng golden" is enough to send a governor to prison. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
I will politely disagree. Kids and young adults now live in a virtual world. Texting has replaced a phone call and human interaction has changed for young people. If you haven't read the Washington Post article, I would recommend it. I'm not saying the article is complete fact because it's a media corporation but if the below statements are remotely true, she should be held accountable for contributing to his death.... I believe she could have stopped him and he was scared about following through with taking his life. She knew exactly where he was and what he was doing. One call to the police could have stopped the whole thing if she wanted him to live, but she didn't. I work for my local sheriff's office and we get calls all the time from concerned friends and family to do a welfare check on someone. IMO, and the courts in this case, her not physically being there did not negate her responsibility. He got out of his vehicle and texted his girlfriend that he was scared, court records say. “Get back in,” she replied. “I helped ease him into it and told him it was okay … I could’ve easily stopped him or called the police but I didn’t,” she texted her friend. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...is-on-trial-this-week/?utm_term=.874d368f8828
I like your train of thought but I think you were looking for coercion, not conspiracy. Conspiracy is two people conspiring, or planning, to commit a crime together. To coerce is to compel to an act or choice. She "compelled" him to act and end his life in the text messages.
You're misunderstanding my post. I wasn't referring to this particular case. I simply presented a very common example of one's words being considered a criminal act. Also, coercion cannot exist without threat or force. I'm a career cop and well aware of the difference. Thanks tho.. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
