Michelle Carter Trial (MA) Verdict announced Friday 11 AM

[Hikergirl]

Why do you think she will be held accountable by God then?

As far as being an adult... yeah... he's 18. Legally someone can go join the military then. Developmentally the brain is not quite mature


True, they do; and yes, maybe that's not homicide. But involuntary manslaughter is not an unreasonable charge to pursue in that situation (against the school, if they have the duty to act for the bullied).

I'm not sure what you are saying by the bolded, do you think because he was only 18 he wasn't fully mature he isn't responsible for the decision he made?
If that is the case, she was only 17 at the time.


For me, If she is found guilty, I'm not sure I agree with the precedent this sets. Where do you legally draw the line? If someone you know talks about committing suicide, and you don't do anything to encourage, but don't do anything specifically to discourage, could you end up being held responsible? Maybe not yet, but this opens the door to many possibilities.
I think we really need to be careful when we start holding people legally responsible for decisions made by other (legal) adults.

 

[Westcoastwild]

Because it was immoral and wrong for her to encourage him to commit suicide. She should be held morally accountable for encouraging him. Nevertheless, he (and not her) is accountable for actually committing suicide. He did the act, no one forced him to do it, and he is responsible for it. She encouraged it, which is immoral, but verbal encouragement should not be illegal in a country that believes in free speech & the right to share an opinion. It should not become illegal to say, "I don't see what you have to live for", even though it is morally repugnant.

A parallel would be, if a guy was considering cheating on his wife, and his best friend strongly encouraged him to do it. The cheater is still totally responsible for his own actons, but the friend bears moral responsibility for encouraging him to do the wrong thing.

Same thing goes for taking drugs, getting involved in crime, etc. Peer pressure is typically a factor in these, but nevertheless, the person who actually commits the crime is the one held legally responsible. Not the friends who pressured him or her to go down the wrong path.

Well, actually, you can charge peers as accessories. If you stand by as friends rape a girl, for example. You probably wouldn't be charged with rape, but you'd definitely be found guilty of some lesser degree.

I think the fact this was brought to trial was for two reasons-

1) her continued interactions with the family. The massive amount of evidence they have against her. It's not a he said/she said thing, and there would be tremendous community pressure on the prosecutor to bring this to trial.

2) a lot of this is age and suicide. If he was 25, this wouldn't be a story. But Americans are more and more seeing 18 year olds as minors. Partially due to development issues. But also partly due to the fact that kids are living at home longer, on their parents insurance until mid twenties, can't apply for student loan emancipation for roughly the same period. And with that comes the narrative of teen suicide. It's a huge problem in the US, and the nature of this one has echoes of social media bullying as well. Also a huge issue. So it's a time appropriate topic. I would be surprised if legally she gets more than a slap on the wrist, but I think this may be a pioneer case in terms of dealing with these bigger issues.

 

[usnuzuloose]

Did you find it Mare?

 

[earfulofmagic]

I'm not sure what you are saying by the bolded, do you think because he was only 18 he wasn't fully mature he isn't responsible for the decision he made?
If that is the case, she was only 17 at the time.


For me, If she is found guilty, I'm not sure I agree with the precedent this sets. Where do you legally draw the line? If someone you know talks about committing suicide, and you don't do anything to encourage, but don't do anything specifically to discourage, could you end up being held responsible? Maybe not yet, but this opens the door to many possibilities.
I think we really need to be careful when we start holding people legally responsible for decisions made by other (legal) adults.

I agree, and that is why this case is so interesting. I do think what she did is horrible, and not to get on too much of a slippery slope, but one particular outcome of this case could be really harmful for people in abusive relationships with SOs who threaten suicide as emotional abuse. And then follow through on it. (As a PP has mentioned, on the first page.)

Ultimately, I have always fallen on the side of someone else's suicide is not an individual person's responsibility--you can love and help someone up and down, but if they commit suicide, you can't blame yourself for it. That always seems cut and dry, this is out of your hands.

However... something about this case (maybe the repeated encouragement coupled with his own uncertainty in his last moments?) feels different, and wrong, to me. Again, though, this thinking can have bad consequences for a lot of people who truly had no malicious intent in someone else's suicide.

Re: the bold, I was more pointing out that "18 = adult" doesn't mean every individual is automatically a full-fledged, responsible adult, though legally you are afforded adulthood. If he had started to kill himself on the eve of his 18th birthday, then finally died at 1:00 AM on his birthday, would that matter to anyone? Do I think people should try to hold 18 year olds to the standard of adulthood, because they need to grow up?--yeah. It's part of the process of maturing. At the same time, a typical 18 year old isn't going to have advanced decision-making processes, many are still living at home and haven't experienced caring entirely for themselves, haven't experienced a LOT of life, and are still forming who they are... I suppose I have difficulty wrapping my head around 18=fully adult. Growing up is like filling in shades of maturity. When I was 21 I could see how young and different I was at 18. I'm not saying we need to have more legal life stages. And we don't want to implement "mature ages" because then we'll start hearing "she's a mature 15 year old, it's okay to date someone 21!" Just that there is a lot of difference between being 18, not out on your own yet, and... actually having adult responsibilities and doing them.

He's dead--that's pretty much final responsibility in his own case. But an 18 yr old brain is not fully mature, thus you are a lot more vulnerable on top of depression and mental health issues and susceptible to abuse. I think the prosecutors will try to highlight this angle to show his vulnerability (that she supposedly knew of) to say what she did was intentional and malicious.

And, yes, because she was only 17 at the time, she is not being tried as an adult. Although sometimes the reverse happens, like when someone commits a heinous crime and they're deemed mature enough to be tried as an adult.

 

[Pixiedustaway]

She's a sociopath. No one ever encourages someone to kill themseleves. Quite the opposite. I'd be livid if I was his mom.

 

[FairestOfThemAll37]

This story is tragic for sure. It sounds like she had some mental illness issues as well?

What she did is absolutely morally reprehensible. I do wonder if this was a truly tragic case of two ill people with the worst possible outcome. I keep reading that she encouraged him to get help as well (and was the only one doing so), I very much wonder how/why/when that changed.

It sounds like suicide had been a recurring theme in this man's life before he even met this girl and there were some family issues as well.

Or she could just be a monster.

Either way, I don't like the precident that this could set. I'm not a fan of slippery slope arguments but legal precidence is a real thing that absolutely influences future prosecutions.

 

[lorimay]

I'm not sure what you are saying by the bolded, do you think because he was only 18 he wasn't fully mature he isn't responsible for the decision he made?
If that is the case, she was only 17 at the time.


For me, If she is found guilty, I'm not sure I agree with the precedent this sets. Where do you legally draw the line? If someone you know talks about committing suicide, and you don't do anything to encourage, but don't do anything specifically to discourage, could you end up being held responsible? Maybe not yet, but this opens the door to many possibilities.
I think we really need to be careful when we start holding people legally responsible for decisions made by other (legal) adults.

Have you read the text exchanges between Michelle and Roy?
Its not that she doesn't do anything but push him to do it over and over.
The texts are horrendous, she is a sick girl. I hope they can give her some mental help after this no matter how it ends.

 

[Westcoastwild]

I agree, and that is why this case is so interesting. I do think what she did is horrible, and not to get on too much of a slippery slope, but one particular outcome of this case could be really harmful for people in abusive relationships with SOs who threaten suicide as emotional abuse. And then follow through on it. (As a PP has mentioned, on the first page.)

Ultimately, I have always fallen on the side of someone else's suicide is not an individual person's responsibility--you can love and help someone up and down, but if they commit suicide, you can't blame yourself for it. That always seems cut and dry, this is out of your hands.

However... something about this case (maybe the repeated encouragement coupled with his own uncertainty in his last moments?) feels different, and wrong, to me. Again, though, this thinking can have bad consequences for a lot of people who truly had no malicious intent in someone else's suicide.

Re: the bold, I was more pointing out that "18 = adult" doesn't mean every individual is automatically a full-fledged, responsible adult, though legally you are afforded adulthood. If he had started to kill himself on the eve of his 18th birthday, then finally died at 1:00 AM on his birthday, would that matter to anyone? Do I think people should try to hold 18 year olds to the standard of adulthood, because they need to grow up?--yeah. It's part of the process of maturing. At the same time, a typical 18 year old isn't going to have advanced decision-making processes, many are still living at home and haven't experienced caring entirely for themselves, haven't experienced a LOT of life, and are still forming who they are... I suppose I have difficulty wrapping my head around 18=fully adult. Growing up is like filling in shades of maturity. When I was 21 I could see how young and different I was at 18. I'm not saying we need to have more legal life stages. And we don't want to implement "mature ages" because then we'll start hearing "she's a mature 15 year old, it's okay to date someone 21!" Just that there is a lot of difference between being 18, not out on your own yet, and... actually having adult responsibilities and doing them.

He's dead--that's pretty much final responsibility in his own case. But an 18 yr old brain is not fully mature, thus you are a lot more vulnerable on top of depression and mental health issues and susceptible to abuse. I think the prosecutors will try to highlight this angle to show his vulnerability (that she supposedly knew of) to say what she did was intentional and malicious.

And, yes, because she was only 17 at the time, she is not being tried as an adult. Although sometimes the reverse happens, like when someone commits a heinous crime and they're deemed mature enough to be tried as an adult.

I didn't realize that she was being tried as a minor. That doesn't bode well for his family getting what they'd probably consider justice.

I agree on the age thing. But I think even that argument is risky. If the prosecutor argues that he was vulnerable due to age, defense can argue that she didn't know what she was doing.

I don't know what would be worse from the viewpoint of the family. Knowing this girl did this stuff or knowing that they failed to help him. I mean, the guy sounds like he had issues, and his problems probably originate with his upbringing. No teen girl is going to come along and convince a guy of that if he didn't bring it up himself.

 

[earfulofmagic]

I agree on the age thing. But I think even that argument is risky. If the prosecutor argues that he was vulnerable due to age, defense can argue that she didn't know what she was doing.

Oh yes--the argument definitely cuts both ways. That is why this is so compelling! (but still gross. I should just stop thinking about this case, but true crime is like my equivalent of highway accident rubbernecking )

 

[lorimay]

She is facing 20 years if convicted, how can she be charged as a minor with that consequence?

 

[Westcoastwild]

She is facing 20 years if convicted, how can she be charged as a minor with that consequence?

Not sure I understand your point?

 

[earfulofmagic]

The article I read said she was being tried as a "youthful offender," not minor -- I wasn't sure if there was a difference (and too lazy at that time to google it) so I just said "not being tried as an adult."

ETA: oh. same difference?
https://definitions.uslegal.com/y/youthful-offender/

 

[lorimay]

Not sure I understand your point?

Sorry, guess I wasn't clear, I didn't think a minor could face such a long sentence if convicted.

***ETA: She is being charged as a youthful offender, which opens her up to face adult sentences.****

 

[Westcoastwild]

Sorry, guess I wasn't clear, I didn't think a minor could face such a long sentence if convicted.

***ETA: She is being charged as a youthful offender, which opens her up to face adult sentences.****

I'm not so sure 20 years is excessive. I think that may mean maximum?

 

[gemini2727]

Glad to see this thread, have to catch up!

 

[Imzadi]

I just read through this whole thread. There are two points I keep reading being brought up here over and over, that I take issue with.

The first is that people keep mentioning the boy/young man was 18, so he was legally old enough to make up his own mind and decide to commit suicide if he chose to.

I don't know the law in MA, but in my state, an ADULT can be held on a suicide watch (I think for 72 hours) and/or be committed to an institution, against his/her will, if (s)he is evaluated and is determined to be a danger to himself or to others.

He was obviously a danger to himself. It didn't matter that he was over 18. If anything, as a PP stated, being that age made it worse. Also, suicide is still against the law. People mention he was old enough to decide he wanted to commit suicide like there is nothing wrong with it. (I believe in assisted suicide for elderly, terminally ill people. So I get that.) But, at the very least, he would be breaking the law.

Someone else mentioned he had some issues in his past where he may have always been suicidal. So, he was in a fragile state of mind, had past history and/or may have had chemical imbalances for depression or suicidal thoughts. Both of those could have been found out, and he could have been properly evaluated, held, treated or had counseling if he or his GF had called on his behalf.

Unfortunately, in the U.S., I think we still do not have laws forcing people to be good samaritans - meaning if one comes upon someone in a car wreck and they are clearly bleeding out, as was the case with Princess Diana, that one MUST call and get help. Carter could have spoken to someone: called the police, told his mom, told a teacher, or spoken to someone to report he was suicidal. But she didn't. She chose not to. Even later, when his mom asked Carter if he had said something before he committed suicide about doing it, she lied. She hid the truth as she knew there was something wrong there. It wasn't like she was to young to know better.

This brings me to issue two. People keep saying it's about her words, her opinions, her stance, and freedom of speech. I am all for that. I also believe this is going down a very slippery slope. And this case will make precedent either way. However, as another PP stated, the Prosecution wouldn't be bringing this to trial and the judge wouldn't be hearing this case, if they didn't think there was some merit and the Prosecution could win. What IS the basis of the Prosecution's case? Don't they have to say that in opening remarks? I don't think anyone has stated that yet.

I doubt it is based on what she actually SAID and in her texts to the deceased and the mother afterward. I think it will come down to her INTENT. All those texts and statements she made go to her frame of mind and intent. Just as a PP mentioned, a person watching a friend commit rape and saying "Do it!" it's not the words, it's the intent. He didn't call the police or get help or pull his friend off of the victim. He egged on the rapist. He was an accessory. There was a payoff in him staying, watching and egging the rapist on.

It's the same with bullies. Bullies bully as there is a positive payoff to them. They enjoy seeing someone in pain, tortured or suicidal. They would even feel power at the thought that they could make someone commit suicide. And the ultimate power would be if they DID make someone commit suicide.

From what I've read in this thread so far, Carter got a lot of payoff even AFTER his suicide, by being in contact with the family and planning out things to do that highlight HER involvement and what she can do for the funeral and after.

It's about intent, power & influence over another weaker person, and connection, not what she said to him.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Also local and following this and the Bella case. I remember when it happened wondering how someone could be so evil as to prompt a friend to take his own life, especially as a mom to kids around the same age. Chilling. It will be interesting to see what comes of it.

 

[Marchand63]

Unlike Casey Anthony & O.J. Simpson, unfortunately. You have to wonder about juries...but judges have their issues, too, because the whole case then rides on only one person's opinions & politics.



I agree with some PP that this case should not be prosecuted. Her boyfriend was an adult, and people have the right to free speech, even if that speech is nonsupportive or immoral. You can't turn every immoral action or word into a crime, unless you want to live in a police state or Saudi Arabia. She'll be held accountable by God.

Not sure what you mean by opinions & politics? Judge has to follow the law, proved or disproved. Politics, do you political leanings? Since here in MA judges are appointed for life they do not face elections, only way to remove is death, retirement or impeachable offense.

 

[Shanti]

Not sure what you mean by opinions & politics? Judge has to follow the law, proved or disproved. Politics, do you political leanings? Since here in MA judges are appointed for life they do not face elections, only way to remove is death, retirement or impeachable offense.

Judges are either elected or appointed, & both are results of either political campaigns or political connections. Yes, every judge's decisions are influenced by his or her political beliefs. That's reality.

Laws are often vague or open to interpretation (such as in this case), and judges are called on to interpret them. The judge's political convictions are going to influence his or her interpretation of the law.

This is why you'll often see higher judges/courts reversing the opinions of lower judges/courts. They had different perspectives on the law, and those perspectives are influenced by politics.

 

[Marchand63]

Judges are either elected or appointed, & both are results of either political campaigns or political connections. Yes, every judge's decisions are influenced by his or her politics. That's reality.

Well here in MA almost all judges were appointed by Dems , so no surprises as far as leanings. All judges here are lifetime appointments so ...

I think a judge facing election would be more likely to tow political lines, here if they don't want to, no consequences. Why they are lifetime