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 don't think anyone blames her "directly" for the 13 year old's suicide. Just she was 50 years old and manipulating a pubescent "child".
And I agree - that was heinous (and immature, irresponsible, etc - many adjectives one can attach). But the fact still remains . . . as outrageous as this was on Drew's part . . . holding her responsible for a teen committing suicide is not appropriate. There had to be many other factors that brought that poor child to the point that she didn't want to live any more. Her family needs to deal with that and quit looking for others to blame for their child's decision (and their own failure for not recognizing that this teen needed mental health intervention).
ETA: I believe I could make a case to hold the parents responsible for allowing the teen access to a computer and the net w/o more oversight for what she was spending her time doing. After all, if the parents had monitored her computer time more closely, perhaps they would have realized how unstable their daughter's mental health was at the time. (Not saying this is what I believe - just saying a case could be made for that as easily as one holding Drew responsible).
lori drew was held responsible for creating a fictitious account against the rules of her myspace agreement, as decided by a jury. the conviction should stand and the judge made a bad decision.(in my opinion)
that is actually unrelated to the cyber bullying issue, although we should not be allowing bullying in any form in this country against the children (whether it is physical or emotional). a child's brain is just not fully formed at age 13, and cannot be expected to make the same rational choices that an adult's brain would.
And I agree - that was heinous (and immature, irresponsible, etc - many adjectives one can attach). But the fact still remains . . . as outrageous as this was on Drew's part . . . holding her responsible for a teen committing suicide is not appropriate. There had to be many other factors that brought that poor child to the point that she didn't want to live any more. Her family needs to deal with that and quit looking for others to blame for their child's decision (and their own failure for not recognizing that this teen needed mental health intervention).
ETA: I believe I could make a case to hold the parents responsible for allowing the teen access to a computer and the net w/o more oversight for what she was spending her time doing. After all, if the parents had monitored her computer time more closely, perhaps they would have realized how unstable their daughter's mental health was at the time. (Not saying this is what I believe - just saying a case could be made for that as easily as one holding Drew responsible).
Very good point about both sets of parents. They should have been monitoring their respective child's internet activities. And that the victims parents "should" have noticed their daughter's depression. However , some people are capable of "hiding" these emotions and it is easy for all of us to forget that we are forming our opinions after the fact and "we were not there". I feel so sad over this incident....I just wish we all would think more before we...speak or type or do something that in hindsight we may regret.
lori drew was held responsible for creating a fictitious account against the rules of her myspace agreement, as decided by a jury. the conviction should stand and the judge made a bad decision.(in my opinion)
that is actually unrelated to the cyber bullying issue, although we should not be allowing bullying in any form in this country against the children (whether it is physical or emotional). a child's brain is just not fully formed at age 13, and cannot be expected to make the same rational choices that an adult's brain would.
Please know - I agree with you and all you have said about children being vulnerable. I have published several articles on cyberbullying (for mental health clients). But this ruling would have set a precedent that would have had wide-reaching effects - and so I feel the Judge did the right thing.
In no way am I an apologist for Drew's behavior. I suspect she will have to move from her community if she ever plans to have any sort of life in the future. She is going to have to live with the knowledge that she did something that at the very least helped push a vulnerable child over the edge.
Don't you think this ruling would have set a troubling precedent wh/ could have made anyone who posts on a website vulnerable to a lawsuit?
Almost everyone I know admits freely that he/she does not give all accurate info on each website where he/she may visit and sign up for something (like coupons, for example). I guess this would mean any of us who have ever done that could be sued for violating the terms of service on that website, if the ruling had stood. Maybe I have misunderstood the ruling, but someone pointed this out to me yesterday (in re: to the Drew case) and it really did impress me as to why the Judge was concerned about setting a precedent with this case.
A judge over ruled the initial conviction of Lori Drew. She is the mother who posed online as a teen age boy and formed a relationship with a boy. Her daughter was having problems with the other girl. After breaking up with and telling the 13 year old girl that "the world will be better off without her"; she commited suicide. The judge ruled he did not want to set a precedent regarding internet responsibility, since the web site's terms of service were not broken. What do you think?? I think what Lori Drew did was reprehensible!
Some things are horrible, but do not violate any law.
Convicting her would've been a terrible precedent to set.
And really... it's not her fault the kid killed herself.
This kind of mean prank goes on all the time (admittedly, typically not a middle-aged mom picking on a young teenager, but still).
Are we going to say it's murder now every time somebody picks on somebody else, tricks them, insults them, says an unkind work to them... and then the person kills herself?
By the way, Meiers never knew that she was tricked, or that it was really Lori Drew. To her last breath, she believed that it was her online teenage friend "Josh Evans" calling her names and insulting her.
So what if it really had been? Such things happen every day.
What if it had been a real teen boy named Josh, and he had told Meiers these thing over the internet? Called her a fat ****, said nobody liked her, said the world would be better off without her?
Should that teenage boy then be tried in a court of law and held responsible for Meiers death?
Whose fault is it, really, that Meiers hung herself in her closet?
I know Meiers' parents want vengeance; I probably would too.
Perhaps they can sue Lori Drew. Bankrupt her, donate all the money to some charity that helps depressed teens.
But this case never should've seen the inside of a criminal court.
Very good point about both sets of parents. They should have been monitoring their respective child's internet activities. And that the victims parents "should" have noticed their daughter's depression. However , some people are capable of "hiding" these emotions and it is easy for all of us to forget that we are forming our opinions after the fact and "we were not there". I feel so sad over this incident....I just wish we all would think more before we...speak or type or do something that in hindsight we may regret.
I am not pointing fingers here! I agree that Drew went over the line. And I know full well that we cannot always determine the mental state of our children (or spouses or coworkers, for that matter). I think you are missing my point - that there is no way to assign blame when it comes to suicide. Who knows what all played into this girl's decision? I am not making excuses or pointing fingers - I am saying - there are always many factors that affect a person's mental health status. No one thing is going to "cause" a person to kill him or herself. There has to be a "perfect storm" of reasons (and brain chemistry) that would lead any person at any age towards believing that the only way to resolve a situation is to commit suicide (or as health professionals prefer we phrase it - complete suicide).
Some things are horrible, but do not violate any law.
Convicting her would've been a terrible precedent to set.
And really... it's not her fault the kid killed herself.
This kind of mean prank goes on all the time (admittedly, typically not a middle-aged mom picking on a young teenager, but still).
Are we going to say it's murder now every time somebody picks on somebody else, tricks them, insults them, says an unkind work to them... and then the person kills themselves?
I know Meiers' parents want vengeance; I probably would too.
Perhaps they can sue Lori Drew. Bankrupt her, donate all the money to some charity that helps depressed teens.
But this case never should've seen the inside of a criminal court.
I agree - civil court is where I would take this case if I were the parents. Make the woman donate a gazillion hours to helping w/ some type of community service . . . put a judgement on her to pay XX amount for the next 25 years to an organization such as a Suicide Prevention program.
I am not pointing fingers here! I agree that Drew went over the line. And I know full well that we cannot always determine the mental state of our children (or spouses or coworkers, for that matter). I think you are missing my point - that there is no way to assign blame when it comes to suicide. Who knows what all played into this girl's decision? I am not making excuses or pointing fingers - I am saying - there are always many factors that affect a person's mental health status. No one thing is going to "cause" a person to kill him or herself. There has to be a "perfect storm" of reasons (and brain chemistry) that would lead any person at any age towards believing that the only way to resolve a situation is to commit suicide (or as health professionals prefer we phrase it - complete suicide).
I essentially agreed with what you said...I,m not pointing any fingers????And I think the judge made the "correct" legal ruling. I also never said Lori made her commit suicide. I do not understand what point I missed?????
I essentially agreed with what you said...I,m not pointing any fingers????And I think the judge made the "correct" legal ruling. I also never said Lori made her commit suicide. I do not understand what point I missed?????
I did not mean you are pointing fingers - I was stating this as a general response that the parents were wanting to hold someone responsible (and I guess the DA did, too). I thought you were saying that even if the parents should have been monitoring their daughter more closely, the fault was still on Drew's shoulders. Sorry for misreading your post. (Good example of how posting online really can lead to misunderstandings even when people basically agree!!!) My apologies.
I think the initial ruling was made purely on emotion. The judge probably knew it would be overturned on appeal. It's no skin off the judge's nose.
I'm sure a civil trial will be underway shortly and THAT will be teller. It probably should have been in civil court to begin with.
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.
I think what Lori Drew did was reprehensible!
