|
ArgumentatumE.C.T. posted:Why can't something like this qualify as Conspiracy to Commit Murder or whatever the legal term would be? She actively persuaded someone to kill a person. She wanted person A dead and talked person B into killing them, that's a crime. Person A also being Person B wouldn't void that, I would think. Rather than a free speech issue, this seems more like an issue of going "there isn't really a law against this, let's just charge her with something else" when the proper thing to do if you want this to be a crime would be to codify something that will cover it in future. The problem with codifying something is that it would have to choose which side to come down on in all the greyer areas - this one was pretty unambiguously lovely, but should it also be a problem if it's "inciting someone to commit suicide when they actually want to and aren't backing out"? Should proper, positive assisted suicide be covered? Should saying "kill yourself you jerk" one time to a stranger be covered, if they later kill themself? If they kill themself immediately after you said it? If you do the same thing this girl did but the person doesn't kill themself, should that case be a crime?
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 07:06 |
|
|
ArgumentatumE.C.T. posted:Seems like only have questions and not a lot of answers. Like saying it was "lovely" like that's grounds for prosecution. Why do you say it was lovely, instead of calling it what it is? Do we know what it is? Do we even know what to call it, besides lovely? The judge decided to call it "involuntary manslaughter" which seems like a pretty clear example of a thing that it really isn't. What it is is "deliberately and maliciously persuading someone to commit suicide", and there's no crime for that. The concern is that if someone decides that that is a crime, whether by writing an appropriate law or by setting a precedent that this act is now going to be legally a subset of "involuntary manslaughter", whether that law would also cover "accidentally persuading someone to commit suicide" or "deliberately but benevolently persuading someone to commit suicide" or "attempted persuading someone to commit suicide".
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2017 01:17
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Except the judgement does not reside on simple presentation of texts, but establishes motive and proximity to the outcome by establishing premeditation and willful conspiracy all the way through to actions taken at the time of death that were intentful and with foreseeable consequence. The judge's verdict is more nuanced than your reductive presentation and thus no reason to accept fears of a slippery slope. The fact that it was suicide is only a matter of circumstance as the chosen method of enacting a premeditated predatory campaign of psychological abuse coupled with deliberate actions in proximity to the event with desire to achieve the foreseeable result of death with intent to derive personal gain. My understanding is that that was the selected crime because she knew he was killing himself and didn't call for help, which can be treated as "criminal negligence" leading to his death, and such negligence puts it in the involuntary manslaughter bucket, so this law technically does apply, but it's gross because it's really only covering the much less ethically wrong part of her actions (the inaction!), and could almost equally legitimately apply to any members of his family who knew he was suicidal and didn't get him sectioned, for example. Bending that law to make it apply here both makes relatively innocent people into criminals, and doesn't really set a good precedent of criminalizing the girl's actions - had she not been communicating with him during the suicide the loophole the judge used to get a conviction wouldn't apply. Not that the judge had a lot of choice, because there isn't (at least not as far as I know) a law that covers the more horrible aspects of her actions. Getting such a law on the books seems like something that should be pursued in case of future similar cases.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2017 01:20
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:And fun bit from this discussion, for the "must have an explicit law!" crowd. But at that point, and given the quote, it seems weird to have called it involuntary manslaughter. Other than based on the fact that a jury did that in another similar case, which just makes it "now both cases are weird, that was a bad precedent". Unless the previous time it actually was unintentional, like if the guy's defense was "I didn't mean for her to actually do it", which doesn't seem to have been plausible for this recent case.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2017 02:18
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Yes. Do you think it's literally impossible for a non-SO to convince somebody to do something. Because that would be pretty difficult to demonstrate and thus be a really dumb position to have.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2017 00:56
|
|