View Single Post
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 06-16-2017, 04:39 PM
zoriolus's Avatar
zoriolus zoriolus is offline
Banjo qd
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,104
Thanks: 3,032
Thanked 2,222 Times in 1,540 Posts
Default Re: Massachusetts texting suicide verdict: Michelle Carter guilty of involuntary mans

Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
She had a defense which could raise any of those items they could at trial.
Did they?

If they chose not to, then she doesn't get a "do over" just because now she realizes that the *I didn't do nuttin' wrong* approach failed.
Prosecutors had claimed that Michelle Carter had sought public attention from her boyfriend's death, and their putative relationship was almost entirely online rather than in-person. The suggestibility and vulnerability of Mr. Roy, a minor at the time, has been an issue. Her attorneys had argued that the defendant had broken no law and had been merely exercising her first amendment right to free speech, and that at that time she was a juvenile and that the matter should focus on that fact.

She deliberately chose those actions to effect a social benefit from somebody else's death. Over the course of days, she tried to persuade him to do it and advised him on how to accomplish it. It wasn't just a spur of the moment thing...

Michelle Carter trial: In days before Conrad Roy's death, teens shared suicidal plan, selfies |
Read the details at the above link and tell me you don't think she's guilty...
I don't know a lot about the case but some things just don't seem right. She did have a robust defense and her own motives don't appear to be rational or noble. The NYT's characterized the decision as "a person's words alone, can cause someone's suicide". They said it was "rare". I can see why. Her defense team chose a judge instead of jury feeling that the best option. I guess I'd like to know what the precedents are, especially in the age of euthanasia. I'm reading where there were 2 cases in the 1960's. One of the cases was a game of Russian roulette.

It's interesting that Dr. Peter Breggin was an expert witness for the defense.

I read the link and yes, she appears to be an advocate and cheerleader for option S. She isn't a sympathetic figure. At one point she seems buoyant about the prospect of helping his family after he's gone. It's cultish. However, is she guilty of manslaughter? The judge must have thought that she passed the tests to earn the very rare verdict. The ACLU and others in the legal community are obviously questioning this.
Reply With Quote