Remember the girl convincing BF to kill himself case?

[ironman1315]

There has been an appeal.
I haven’t read the appeal but it’s based on juvenile criminal law and, more interestingly, free speech.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/11/us/texting-suicide-case-appeal/index.html

[UteThunder]

How did you feel about the verdict?

[ironman1315]

I felt like she deserved to be punished. She clearly was encouraging a guy to kill himself. But legally there may have been some issues, beyond what this article says. But damn, you gotta be a cold-hearted dickhead to do what she did.

[UteThunder]

I thought she got off easy.

This appeal sounds like a load of crap. If she wins, how is it different from a co-conspirator to murder who didn’t actually participate in the murder but just sent text messages helping plan the murder and then later encouraged the actual murderer to go through with the plan? Can’t they also claim protected free speech?  I mean, they weren’t there. They didn’t pull the trigger. All they did was exercise their right to free speech, right? 

[ironman1315]

I think she’s getting off easy too and this appeal is weak. But there are some interesting questions about how far must one go to be guilty of s crime

[UtMtBiker]

She’s clearly a terrible person but the involuntary manslaughter conviction was a stretch. The appauling nature of her actions made it a easy moral decision but I don’t think it follows the letter of the law.  The appeal has legal precedent where the conviction has none.  I think she has a good shot at never seving the sentence.  

 

[Chidojuan]

Doesn’t this stray into fighting words though? Obviously they weren’t fighting, but the texts were sent with the intent to cause bodily harm, even if she wasn’t the person committing the harm.

[Chidojuan]

And what I mean by bringing that up is that the appeal seems to center around protected speech, but if her words were intended to cause bodily harm, then they are not protected under fighting words doctrine. There isn’t a legal precedent for encouraging suicide, and all of the rulings are essentially examples of public language, not personal. But personal language intending physical harm seems like it wouldn’t be protected speech.

[ironman1315]

Threatening language isn’t (e.g. me saying I am going to kill you with a raised fist) but this is still something different because there is no imminent harm that she is committing.

[Chidojuan]

True, I wonder if it would fall under Incitement then? Seems like there could be some legal precedence created from this case.

[ironman1315]

But the incitement must be incitement to do something illegal and, so far as I know, a person taking their own life isn’t illegal.

[Chidojuan]

For some reason, I actually thought suicide was illegal, you learn something new everyday. It makes sense, how could a legal system punish suicide? I suppose the prosecution could try to classify the speech as assisted suicide, but that would really be reaching. The appeal might actually have a stronger defense than I thought. This is a really strange case.

[ironman1315]

It could be an assisted suicide thing. But, they went for involuntary manslaughter and got it. So, the real question is was she reckless or negligent in her actions and did those actions result in death and are her words in this instance really speech. It’s a tough call. But I think she will lose on appeal. I can’t see how telling someone to go off himself is really protected speech.

[Chidojuan]

I agree, and I hope they rule against the appeal.

[Author]

Posts