Girl who convinced friend to committ suicide found guilty of involuntary manslaughter

MilesMorales1

Think there's been a thread on this before on AH.

A Massachusetts judge found Michelle Carter, 20, guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the 2014 death of her boyfriend, who poisoned himself by inhaling carbon monoxide in his pickup truck. Prosecutors had said she sent Conrad Roy III, 18, numerous text messages urging him to commit suicide.

The case was built largely on Michelle Carter's own words, in the form of hundreds of texts messages exchanged with a vulnerable young man who killed himself in July 2014 by inhaling carbon monoxide in his pickup truck.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/16/us/michelle-carter-texting-case/index.html


Good, its disgusting, and she has a bizarre lack of empathy. Stuff like that is not ok, to say to anyone verbally or via text.

Rothko

Don't know how it could be considered involuntary when she pushed him to kill himself.

valoren

If you happened upon someone standing on a ledge at a height, you should have the common sense to realize that it is irrational behavior and that person is more than likely suicidal. Any empathetic person would choose their words carefully (if at all), the crux of which would be to not jump. They would seek help.

If you had the vindictiveness to voluntarily advise that person to 'Jump!' and they subsequently did so, then you are guilty of causing their death no matter how you look at it, you have negatively influenced a vulnerable person unnecessarily.

Looks like this case will set legal precedent to that effect. She has been charged with involuntary manslaughter according to current laws. It now seems set to be changed.

MilesMorales1

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/08/us/text-message-suicide-michelle-carter-conrad-roy/index.html

Transcript!

Roy: "I'm just to sensitive. I want my family to know there was nothing they could do. I am entrapped in my own thoughts"
Roy: "like no I would be happy if they had no guilt about it. because I have a bad feeling tht this is going to create a lot of depression between my parents/sisters"
Roy: "i'm overthinking everything. . f**k. I gotta stop and just do it"
Carter: "I think your parents know you're in a really bad place. Im not saying they want you to do it, but I honestly feel like they can accept it. They know there's nothing they can do, they've tried helping, everyone's tried. But there's a point that comes where there isn't anything anyone can do to save you, not even yourself, and you've hit that point and I think your parents know you've hit that point. You said you're mom saw a suicide thing on your computer and she didn't say anything. I think she knows it's on your mind and she's prepared for it"
Carter: Everyone will be sad for a while, but they will get over it and move on. They won't be in depression I won't let that happen. They know how sad you are and they know that you're doing this to be happy, and I think they will understand and accept it. They'll always carry u in their hearts"

Carter: "You better not be bull sh*ting me and saying you're gonna do this and then purposely get caught"

yerwanthere123

She deserves a sentence of some form alright but I don't think it should be twenty years.

munster87

'friend'

Jesus Wept

I remember this from last year. Grim. Wonder what's going on with her.

Jesus Wept

munster87 wrote: »

'friend'

Fiend

Valmont

This is all tied up in the fact that while supposedly legal, suicide is simply not allowed. If you tell someone you're going to kill yourself, odds are you'll be banged up in a police cell or the local inpatient mental health centre. So while we can't say this woman caused this man to kill himself, her central role in a de facto proscribed act ensured some charges would be brought against her, based on moral outrage if anything. A jail sentence seems a bit harsh though.

AMKC

yerwanthere123 wrote: »

She deserves a sentence of some form alright but I don't think it should be twenty years.

She forced a vulnerable young man to take his life. He was at a very low point in his life and instead of helping him she took advantage of him by telling him to commit suicide which led to him taking his own life.
I think she deserves life.
If you take or force someone to take there life then you should serve the rest of your life in prison.

Nonsense verdict.

AMKC

AMKC wrote: »

She forced a vulnerable young man to take his life. He was at a very low point in his life and instead of helping him she took advantage of him by telling him to commit suicide which led to him taking his own life.
I think she deserves life.
If you take or force someone to take there life then you should serve the rest of your life in prison.

Was it really a case of "forced" or "asked"?

I think life sentences should be reserved for murder or serious aggravated crimes. Not asking someone to do something, even though it can make one a pretty horrific person. Ultimately he made the decision and he did the act, I'm not sure about this attempt to pass the buck at all.

freshpopcorn

I think she thought she was cleverer than she actually was to be honest. Teenage girls can be very silly in situations like this even tough people say that girls are more mature in my experience they often aren't.

wakka12

hope she rots in hell, Id have more respect for a murderer than her

wakka12

yerwanthere123 wrote: »

She deserves a sentence of some form alright but I don't think it should be twenty years.

I agree 20 years just seems to much but honestly I couldn't give a rats ass wtf happens her , deserving of absolutely no sympathy whatsoever

Sweetemotion

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Was it really a case of "forced" or "asked"?

I think life sentences should be reserved for murder or serious aggravated crimes. Not asking someone to do something, even though it can make one a pretty horrific person. Ultimately he made the decision and he did the act, I'm not sure about this attempt to pass the buck at all.

He got out of the car because he could feel the carbon monoxide working. She told him to get back in and you call that passing the buck?

Delighted she was found guilty.

pangbang

I can see this is a text message thing, but I'd put money on it that social media probably played a large part in this.

The pressure that younger people are under today with the way the world is going, must be compressed 10 fold by social media. The stories you hear, even personally, about the carry on in schools/colleges via facebook and twitter and such!

I'm sure that in (many) years to come, our present day "communications" will be viewed as a "digital" disease that caused untold human strife.

Parents today.........wouldn't want to be them.

Little rant might not be related to this case, but whatever.

pauliebdub

A truly dispicable girl to goad a vulnerable young man into taking his own life. The transcript of what she said is very cruel. I hope she gets the maximum time allowable, 20 years.

tinpib

This is a headline writer's wet dream and some of the texts do sound bad, but like all cases I think you really would need to hear all the evidence before being able to make a call on it.

The jury did and found her guilty. Like in the majority of cases I'm sure they made the correct decision.

Jesus Wept

Deleted User wrote: »

Was it really a case of "forced" or "asked"?

I think life sentences should be reserved for murder or serious aggravated crimes. Not asking someone to do something, even though it can make one a pretty horrific person. Ultimately he made the decision and he did the act, I'm not sure about this attempt to pass the buck at all.

She hasn't been sentenced yet?

Jesus Wept

Jesus Wept wrote: »

She hasn't been sentenced yet?

Oh I appreciate that. Was responding to poster who said she deserved life, I was saying it should be reserved for murder and rare cases, not telling someone to do something. If she told him to go jump in a lake, I wonder would she be convicted of homicide or swimming.

Surely it'll be overturned, the article suggests that despite the notoriously broad definition of homicide there academics are concerned.

Obviously it wouldn't even be considered in Ireland.

meeeeh

tinpib wrote: »

This is a headline writer's wet dream and some of the texts do sound bad, but like all cases I think you really would need to hear all the evidence before being able to make a call on it.

The jury did and found her guilty. Like in the majority of cases I'm sure they made the correct decision.

It was a non jury trial. I think like in all the cases you would have to inform yourself about the case before commenting on it.

Anyway I think it's about time bullying (and this was a form of bullying) is properly recognized for the damage it can do. That being said she seems to be suicidal and messed up herself and I am not sure locking her up for 20 years would make any sense. We'll see what actual sentence is.

meeeeh

meeeeh wrote: »

It was a non jury trial. I think like in all the cases you would have to inform yourself about the case before commenting on it.

And the law in that State, which is clearly far broader than any concept of murder or manslaughter on this side of the Atlantic.

Minderbinder

I don't think the girl fully comprehended the magnitude of the situation. At that age it's not easy to have an awareness of our responsibility towards other people. Children and teenagers are incredibly selfish. They don't foresee the impact that their words or actions can have because they don't have a fully developed frontal lobe.

While what she said was despicable I would be more inclined to judge it as an extreme form of bullying.

DrPhilG

Minderbinder wrote: »

I don't think the girl fully comprehended the magnitude of the situation. At that age it's not easy to have an awareness of our responsibility towards other people.

She was 17, not 7.

She knew this guy was on the edge and willingly encouraged him over it.

Minderbinder

DrPhilG wrote: »

Minderbinder wrote: »

I don't think the girl fully comprehended the magnitude of the situation. At that age it's not easy to have an awareness of our responsibility towards other people.

She was 17, not 7.

She knew this guy was on the edge and willingly encouraged him over it.

The frontal lobe isn't fully developed until the late 20's though and 17 is a kid. I don't want to defend her too much because it was still f*****g horrible. But these kids spend most of their time in a virtual reality. Not just kids. We're all posting messages in an online society where there is little responsibility and we can say what we like without consequence. Young people who have grown up in this environment may find it difficult to separate the two realities.

Are we going towards a world where any form of online bullying that results in suicide could become involuntary manslaughter?

I think she should spend some time in juvenile detention but I don't agree with the conviction of 'manslaughter'.

This reminds me of a famous case a good few years back, where a guy was streaming himself taking drugs. The people in the chat were goading him to take more and more until said user eventually had multiple overdoses and died.

Samaris

Minderbinder wrote: »

The frontal lobe isn't fully developed until the late 20's though and 17 is a kid. I don't want to defend her too much because it was still f*****g horrible. But these kids spend most of their time in a virtual reality. Not just kids. We're all posting messages in an online society where there is little responsibility and we can say what we like without consequence. Young people who have grown up in this environment may find it difficult to separate the two realities.

Are we going towards a world where any form of online bullying that results in suicide could become involuntary manslaughter?

I think she should spend some time in juvenile detention but I don't agree with the conviction of 'manslaughter'.

I understand you're not really trying to defend her words/actions, but seventeen is old enough to have consequences and to be able to understand the consequences. A 25-year old could argue that their frontal lobe isn't developed enough (or rather, it could be argued on their behalf), but we accept that 25 is well and truly old enough to know better. Seventeen is not legally an adult, but it is old enough to understand something like this. There's no real cut-and-dry adulthood, and I agree that this sort of empathy is gradually developed, but if it's not well on the way by 17, there's a serious issue developing.

What is "any form of online bullying" in this situation? A situation where one person (or a group) hounds someone to commit suicide, seeing they are vulnerable? Yes, I think that should have punishment. Where a girlfriend or boyfriend encourages their partner to kill themselves, talking about how their families would get over it and convincing them that the best way out is to kill themselves?

I'd be more iffy on a suicide pact where one member pulls out though, unless it's clear they never intended to go through with it. I also keep reservations on someone who is terminally and agonisingly ill being supported in their rational choice.

But this was neither of those cases. This was a young woman who was old enough to understand what she was doing encouraging a young man she should have been in a position to help to kill himself, wronging him when he needed her and bringing pain to everyone involved.

seenitall

[quote="Minderbinder;103830637

Are we going towards a world where any form of online bullying that results in suicide could become involuntary manslaughter?'.[/quote]

No, just the ones where there is evidence of a determination to goad, guilt-trip and emotionally manipulate another into taking their own life.

Those texts are utterly chilling. It is evident from reading them that she had a fierce determination to have a hand in bringing about his death by any means available; some are sweet and comforting, assuring him this was the right thing to do and that she would look after his family and any other fallout, some are gently encouraging, some are stroppy and bullying. But all of them have just the one intention behind them. They are the handiwork of a sadistic, inhumane, cruel piece of scum.

The fact that she would most likely walk free from this in any EU country is an indictment of the EU "justice" systems, afaic.

Oh, and a 17 year old knows exactly what death means. Sheesh.

Arcade_Tryer

Deleted User wrote: »

Nonsense verdict.

This. And thankfully will most likely be overturned on appeal due to 1st amendment rights.

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I think she thought she was cleverer than she actually was to be honest. Teenage girls can be very silly in situations like this even tough people say that girls are more mature in my experience they often aren't.

Apart from the charges being nonsense, the above post gives some insight into the misogynistic aspect of public reaction to this case too. A lot of people more outraged by the fact that it was a teenage girl who committed this morally objectionable behaviour as opposed to a man or an adult.

wakka12 wrote: »

hope she rots in hell, Id have more respect for a murderer than her

And then there is this. The above poster could potentially be called for jury duty some day. Think about that.

Arcade_Tryer

seenitall wrote: »

The fact that she would most likely walk free from this in any EU country is an indictment of the EU "justice" systems, afaic.
.

Before the trial, the US is the country a person would most likely walk free from this type of charge due to the first amendment. For this reason, the verdict will probably be overturned on appeal.

seenitall

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Before the trial, the US is the country a person would most likely walk free from this type of charge due to the first amendment. For this reason, the verdict will probably be overturned on appeal.

Whatever. IMO justice certainly won't have been served in that case, and I can but sympathise with the boy's family then, but sadly, not the first or the last time something like that happens.

Samaris

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Apart from the charges being nonsense, the above post gives some insight into the misogynistic aspect of public reaction to this case too. A lot of people more outraged by the fact that it was a teenage girl who committed this morally objectionable behaviour as opposed to a man or an adult.

Thus far, I have not really seen any misogyny to it. Maybe I'm not reading the right articles, admittedly, but any reference to her gender has been more or less just descriptive. Including the bit you mentioned. If anything, calling her a "girl" and him a "young man" places more agency on the male, a sort of indicator that a "young man" has more responsibility than a mere "girl" (or "boy"). Although we do tend to be more horrified at younger people or children committing awful deeds than adults - look at the horrors around famous child killers for instance. Those are memorable because of our strong protectiveness towards children and the ideal of childhood innocence.

I didn't really want to go down a rabbit hole of how they are referred to, but since it's brought up.

As a human being, her actions and words were appalling. The only mitigation might be age (and I'm not convinced), but certainly not her gender. Nor should it be used for additional blame. It was she herself as a human being that decided to encourage him to kill himself, not her genitalia or ovaries.

But seriously, I think this is a rabbit hole that doesn't need to be explored in this case. The most relevant point of her gender is a side-point of her being his girlfriend - someone he should have been able to trust to try help him.

laugh

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Before the trial, the US is the country a person would most likely walk free from this type of charge due to the first amendment. For this reason, the verdict will probably be overturned on appeal.

You really need to listen to judge's decision you are talking nonsense.

Arcade_Tryer

laugh wrote: »

You really need to listen to judge's decision you are talking nonsense.

Already have. His verdict is going to be overruled by better judges.

laugh

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Already have. His verdict is going to be overruled by better judges.

So you can legally encourage someone to kill themselves?

osarusan

Hmmm...not sure how I feel about this. Certainly, the girl seems like a despicable character, but as long as he was an adult of sound mind and body, he should be responsible for his own decisions.

The judge seems to have based the verdict on what happened when he got out of the car, and her messages that convinced him to get back into the car. But still, in the end it was his own decision.

I suppose it depends on the relevant definition of involuntary manslaughter. It must be quite broad.

laugh

osarusan wrote: »

Hmmm...not sure how I feel about this. Certainly, the girl seems like a despicable character, but as long as he was an adult of sound mind and body, he should be responsible for his own decisions.

The judge seems to have based the verdict on what happened when he got out of the car, and her messages that convinced him to get back into the car. But still, in the end it was his own decision.

They also contend that she was on the phone to him as he died and did nothing to prevent his death.

pointelle

Suas11 wrote: »

Don't know how it could be considered involuntary when she pushed him to kill himself.

Yeah, if it's the case I'm thinking of, she urged and pressured him, murder.

meeeeh

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Already have. His verdict is going to be overruled by better judges.

Just out of curiosity here what are your qualifications in American law? I presume they are at least on par with prosecutor and judge in this case to determine chances of appeal and to judge their competence.

Samaris

osarusan wrote: »

Hmmm...not sure how I feel about this. Certainly, the girl seems like a despicable character, but as long as he was an adult of sound mind and body, he should be responsible for his own decisions.

The judge seems to have based the verdict on what happened when he got out of the car, and her messages that convinced him to get back into the car. But still, in the end it was his own decision.

I suppose it depends on the relevant definition of involuntary manslaughter. It must be quite broad.

While it was (edit; his own decision ultimately), we do usually treat those who want to kill themselves (bar in the cases of absolutely unlivable circumstances - and our opinions of those change by the individual, of course - as not being of sound mind.

I don't know if that's the right or wrong approach or if it's true in this case, but that she encouraged him to get back in the car after he decided to leave it is pretty disgusting. That's like someone stepping off the parapet and some moron encouraging them to get back onto it. "Go on, your family will be okay, you can't be saved, even you can't save yourself, better to get it over with."

If y'all'll excuse my French, fcuk that. She's as culpable as if she was standing there encouraging him to climb back onto the parapet. And that was her decision (repeatedly).

pointelle

, but as long as he was an adult of sound mind and body, he should be responsible for his own decisions.

It's not so simple, he was suicidal, delicate, fragile, he seemed dependent on her , it was obviously an abusive relationship , if a vulnerable person gets hooked by a narcissistic manipulator like her, long story short, lots of psychological terminology, he wasn't in control. I know a lot of people pooh pooh such talk but for some, nasty stuff like this becomes a hobby.

osarusan

If the conviction relates to her failure to prevent the suicide she knew to be happening, then I can understand it.

But the idea that she should be convicted for him reaching that decision in the first place is quite a stretch for me.

But, again, without knowing what the law is and the definitions are, how can I really comment.

Samaris

osarusan wrote: »

If the conviction relates to her failure to prevent the suicide she knew to be happening, then I can understand it.

But the idea that she should be convicted for him reaching that decision in the first place is quite a stretch for me.

But, again, without knowing what the law is and the definitions are, how can I really comment.

Because she was encouraging him to do it, that's why. Seriously, if you saw someone on a ledge, poised to jump, would you encourage them to do it and get it over with? If they got down off the ledge by themselves, would you seriously see nothing wrong* with encouraging them to get back onto it - given you are okay with her being convicted for not -stopping- (or trying to stop) a suicide from happening, why are you less okay with the same sort of legal punishment for -encouraging- it to happen?

Sure, she was a way away, encouraging it by text messages to get on with it. But that is no different - and perhaps even more callous - than being right there and encouraging it.

*But I grant I don't know if it's criminally wrong, and maybe that was the only point you were making regarding it. I also don't know the legal ins and outs of such a case, it's such a bizarrely cruel and callous thing to happen, and thank heavens it is rare enough that there is questions about how to deal with it. But now it's happened and someone is dead so there's going to be a legal precedent for this sort of thing in future, at least in one country.

osarusan

Samaris wrote: »

*But I grant I don't know if it's criminally wrong, and maybe that was the only point you were making regarding it.

This is exactly it.

Morally reprehensible, sure. As I said, she seems to be despicable.

But I'm wondering about where what she did actually breaks a law.

But again, I don't know enough about what the relevant laws are.

Samaris

I don't know. There are laws about incitement to violence, and I suppose you could stretch a point to incitement to self-harm?

It is kinda weird to think for every crazy-specific law out there, something happened to make it appear a necessity in case it happened again! Laws against shoving moose out of aeroplanes come to mind.

Yis shouldn't need a law to not encourage vulnerable people to kill themselves! But apparently we humans do.

Are Am Eye

osarusan wrote: »

This is exactly it.

Morally reprehensible, sure. As I said, she seems to be despicable.

But I'm wondering about where what she did actually breaks a law.

But again, I don't know enough about what the relevant laws are.

In this country would be something like this

MightyMandarin

pangbang wrote: »

I can see this is a text message thing, but I'd put money on it that social media probably played a large part in this.

The pressure that younger people are under today with the way the world is going, must be compressed 10 fold by social media. The stories you hear, even personally, about the carry on in schools/colleges via facebook and twitter and such!

I'm sure that in (many) years to come, our present day "communications" will be viewed as a "digital" disease that caused untold human strife.

Parents today.........wouldn't want to be them.

Little rant might not be related to this case, but whatever.

I absolutely agree tbh.

Even though I'm quite young (21), I was lucky to have not been even younger before the social media disease fully took over our society. I can't imagine how much more difficult school is for 13-18yr olds now that every single ****ing thing seems to be documented and plastered all over the internet.

Some of my friends see me as backward as I avoid Snapchat, IG and barely use FB at all, but personally I'm happy with my habits as I know for a fact I'd feel 10x ****ter about myself if I took part in the facade where everyone's lives seems to be way more interesting and exciting than mine.

I'm fully aware of the illusion but I'm afraid that people who partake in it actively are slowly seduced and overcome by it (which is natural if you're surrounded by it endlessly) and what happens is people feel the need to go to great lengths to be the centre of attention, even just for a few hours.

I'm well aware that this is continuing to go off on a tangent, but I definitely see it as relevant as attention-seeking in general is far more prevalent in society now, and the lengths people will go to in order to obtain attention are far greater. Social media has done nothing but exacerbate this imo.

tinpib

meeeeh wrote: »

It was a non jury trial. I think like in all the cases you would have to inform yourself about the case before commenting on it.

Ha ha, well there you go! I rest my case. :pac:

Galwayguy35

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh I appreciate that. Was responding to poster who said she deserved life, I was saying it should be reserved for murder and rare cases, not telling someone to do something. If she told him to go jump in a lake, I wonder would she be convicted of homicide or swimming.

Surely it'll be overturned, the article suggests that despite the notoriously broad definition of homicide there academics are concerned.

Obviously it wouldn't even be considered in Ireland.

Yeah in Ireland she would probably get a suspended sentence considering the soft system we have that cares more about scumbags than decent law abiding people.

wakka12

Would it not be voluntary manslaughter seeing as she didnt actually murder him but intended to convince him to end his life?