Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I hope that the Court does agrees to review this case. I think that this young woman, regardless of the tragic suicide of her boyfriend, was wrongly convicted.
Firstly, I think she has some psychiatric or psychological problems herself. Perhaps she was trying to use reverse psychology on him. Regardless of why she did it...even if it was in malice, this is just another example of why the founders of this country thought that governing and judging should be reserved to those gifted with superior intellect. I don't agree that we should be run by an elite higher order, but I sure do understand the idea of it. This is a case of rough-cut moralist prosecutors and judges sculpting the law to the shape of their common-minded reasonings. People of this mentality cannot understand some of the higher principles that undergird some of our laws.
Where does the reasoning behind her conviction take us? You can extrapolate the most bizarre and ridiculous cases for criminal culpability using the reasoning of the judge that convicted her. Every dammed one of us could be convicted of a crime under the reasoning used to convict this girl.
PREEMPTION: To the common-minded who cannot distinguish between a reasoned argument based on principle vs sticking up for someone the pitchfork mob would call pure-evil... I am not justifying the act of prodding someone to commit suicide. Got it!!!
I hope that the Court does agrees to review this case. I think that this young woman, regardless of the tragic suicide of her boyfriend, was wrongly convicted.
Firstly, I think she has some psychiatric or psychological problems herself. Perhaps she was trying to use reverse psychology on him. Regardless of why she did it...even if it was in malice, this is just another example of why the founders of this country thought that governing and judging should be reserved to those gifted with superior intellect. I don't agree that we should be run by an elite higher order, but I sure do understand the idea of it. This is a case of rough-cut moralist prosecutors and judges sculpting the law to the shape of their common-minded reasonings. People of this mentality cannot understand some of the higher principles that undergird some of our laws.
Where does the reasoning behind her conviction take us? You can extrapolate the most bizarre and ridiculous cases for criminal culpability using the reasoning of the judge that convicted her. Every dammed one of us could be convicted of a crime under the reasoning used to convict this girl.
PREEMPTION: To the common-minded who cannot distinguish between a reasoned argument based on principle vs sticking up for someone the pitchfork mob would call pure-evil... I am not justifying the act of prodding someone to commit suicide. Got it!!!
I haven't gave this much thought so I am simply stating the first thing I think of here. Didn't Manson go to prison for simply instructing others to do something?
She was in an influential position with this young man and encouraged him to kill himself. That makes her guilty of something in my book. Why, in a position of influence would you not encourage him to seek help or even go over and help him yourself, even if you took friends with you. She seems off, almost like she wanted to be in charge of his death and/or see it happen.
This ruling seems appropriate and justice has been served. She was not convicted of murder or even assault - she was convicted of involuntary manslaughter.
In fact you could argue that the ruling was on the light side, since she was completely aware of the carbon monoxide building in the victim's pickup, and encouraged him to get in anyway. It was not just a random comment, it was direct instigation with a clear and deadly intent.
This ruling seems appropriate and justice has been served. She was not convicted of murder or even assault - she was convicted of involuntary manslaughter.
In fact you could argue that the ruling was on the light side, since she was completely aware of the carbon monoxide building in the victim's pickup, and encouraged him to get in anyway. It was not just a random comment, it was direct instigation with a clear and deadly intent.
Its freedom of speech to hire someone to kill someone because they didn't actually kill anyone... its also freedom of speech to yell "fire" or "gun" and then if someone dies in a crowd, its okay because they didn't kill that person... its also freedom of speech to say "bomb" at a TSA screening area and not expect anything to happen because they didn't kill anyone and they have freedom of speech... uh, no.... you are FREE to say whatever you want, it doesn't mean you are free of consequences...
I totally disagree with the conviction. Like the old adage, "If someone told you to jump off a bridge, would you do it?" An adult makes all their own decisions up to and including ending their life prematurely. The boyfriend could have said, "This is wrong. I'm not going to listen to you." He could have thrown his phone in the river. He could have texted someone else. He could have blocked her number. He could have driven that vehicle to his parents' home or to the hospital.
Blaming her is misplaced. No one held a gun to his head and forced him to read, respond, and follow her text messages. Convicting her sets a bad legal precedent. Sure what she did was evil. But the only person responsible for a suicide is that individual. That's what suicide is.
I totally disagree with the conviction. Like the old adage, "If someone told you to jump off a bridge, would you do it?" An adult decides to take their own life. The boyfriend could have said, "This is wrong. I'm not going to listen to you." He could have thrown his phone in the river. He could have texted someone else. He could have blocked her number. He could have driven that vehicle to his parents' home or to the hospital.
Blaming her is misplaced. No one held a gun to his head and forced him to read, respond, and follow her text messages. Convicting her sets a bad legal precedent. Sure what she did was evil. But the only person responsible for a suicide is that individual. That is the very definition of suicide.
Tex Watson could have told Manson no, also.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
