Comments by "cchris874" (@cchris874) on "Woman found guilty in texting suicide trial" video.

  1. +Deven Appreciate your input, but here's my problem. Manslaughter has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I'd say it's NOT beyond reasonable doubt to declare that every single depressed or suicidal person is mentally unstable to the point they are deemed incompetent to make their own decisions. Would you also give Roy a pass on the basis of mental instability if Carter coaxed him into shooting another person? If not, I see a dangerous double standard. Tricky case though.
    9
  2. +Martin valles I agree with you, it's not so simple. That applies to many layers here. It's not so simple, for example, to prove beyond doubt that Roy was in fact forced to kill himself. If there's reasonable doubt, then the judge overstepped his bounds.
    4
  3. +Deven The key word is "convince." People have convinced me of doing things many many times. Does that prove I'm mentally unstable? "He got out of the truck because he was scared." Too open to interpretation for me. Analogy: I remember being afraid to do things, especially as a child - swallowing pills, diving into the swimming pool,for examples, but I was coaxed by adults to do them, partly because even as a child I recognized it was in my own interest. People hesitate and change their minds all the time out of fear, reluctance. "Scared" has reasonable doubt written all over it. Anyway, I welcome disagreement. It's healthy to debate this.
    3
  4. +Jeremy As I understand it, the case for manslaughter depends on Roy having no ability to defend himself against her texts. That in turn depends on proving Roy was defenseless. That's the way manslaughter usually works. Do we have (mental health community) a well-established procedure to determine that depressed and suicidal people are of necessity completely helpless? This judgement just strikes me as having proceeded too quickly with too many unproven assumptions.
    3
  5. +Frank I would probably agree with your assessment as a general rule. However, not every clinically depressed or suicidal person lacks the ability to maintain mental competence and have the rational ability to resist orders or suggestions. So that to me constitutes reasonable doubt.
    2
  6. +Deven As an adult, I find myself changing my mind all the time based on input from others. Some other examples: whether to invest in a stock; choosing surgery as a treatment option; confronting someone you don't want to confront. As for fear, the same thing. A person may fear going on a plane, then be coaxed on the plane, then chicken out and walk off (one unlucky fearful flyer was talked back onto a plane which actually crashed!). These examples suffice for me to constitute reasonable doubt. I would have to be convinced that being depressed and suicidal proves beyond reasonable doubt that you don't have meaningful free will. If we aren't willing to make this generalization, then it seems to me the judge is playing God and assuming he knows for (reasonable) certain which depressed people have it and which don't. Too much grey for me = the verdict overstepped the legitimate boundary of the law. That said, I won't be crying for her when she's in jail.
    2
  7. +Andy I think she deserves punishment. But legally, or even just using common sense, I don't see this as fitting the definition of manslaughter without a proof that Roy had no control over the situation. That's where I feel there's reasonable doubt. Exactly what goes on inside the mind of a depressed suicidal person who's being texted these messages is impossible to know with any certainty. We hardly know anything about how the mind works; it's fantastically complex. So to me, it's playing God to say we know for sure she killed him.
    2
  8. +Andy I think we're on the same basic wave length. I feel she shouldn't get the max penalty, since it's so unlike most manslaughter cases, and she was under 18, and it's hard to know just how much of a danger she is to others except in the unusual circumstance of this case. I'll bet the judge will giver her not more than 5-10, if that.
    2
  9. +Milan Oh don't be so thick, she was 17 WHEN SHE DID IT. "A person can be considered a Youthful Offender if he or she committed the offense between the ages of fourteen and seventeen." -Mass DA
    1
  10. +Deven The source I quoted above also says "A person between the ages of seven and seventeen charged with a criminal offense is considered a juvenile." Do you know if he means when they are charged, or at the time of offense?
    1
  11. +Stephen As someone who has suffered from depression, you cannot just say every single depressed or suicidal person is mentally incompetent. Would you give Roy a free pass to kill someone else just because he's depressed? This means there's reasonable doubt. That benefit should IMO be granted to her, even though I agree she deserves some jail time for her horrible and evil behavior. Just as suicide is complex, so is the notion of manslaughter by words. As one legal analyst put it, it's like trying to push a square peg into a round hole. With all this grayness, the proper thing to do is to accept that the law is overreaching its proper bounds here. Of course, that just my own personal opinion, and I welcome healthy debate and disagreement. cheers
    1
  12. +Daisy Agreed, except there's reasonable doubt.
    1
  13. +Benny But there' a big difference. Manson case fits the definition of murder. Carter Roy case goes against the usual parameters of manslaughter.
    1
  14. +Gus The texts didn't change my mind. There's reasonable doubt that he was forced to do it.
    1
  15. +Angle Agree the law is misapplied here. But forgetting the law, one has to admit that what she did was in fact morally wrong, and very very evil. So she deserves punishment not from a legal, but from a moral point of view. I don;t know that there's anything else she can be charged with under the law though. So while I disagree with the legal process here, I won't be feeling too badly for her once (or if) she's behind bars.
    1
  16. +Jeremy I agree about her pressuring him and not helping him. But that doesn't prove to my satisfaction that he was defenseless. That's the key, as my mind sees it.
    1
  17. +Jeremy But the question remains, was this really manslaughter? Not doing anything to prevent doesn't = manslaughter.
    1
  18. +Jeremy "Any reasonably minded individual would never ever let ....... " My position is that I personally don't have the confidence to speculate like this. The mind is fabulously complex. We know only a tiny tiny bit about how it functions. So if you take a depressed suicidal person, and then add to that a friend ordering him to take his life, there are theoretically countless other factors we have no way to measure that could have influenced his decision; and which may be the product of a "normal" person. In particular, the assumption that a reasonable minded person "would never ever let that get to them" is fraught with difficulty. Scenario: as he receives each text from her, he reasons that she's right: "if I don't get back in the truck, I will keep putting it off, so I better do it now, or I will never do it." That doesn't necessarily indicate a defenseless person.
    1
  19. +Jeremey And I just want to make clear I do not see whatsherface as a victim. She did evil, and I won't be shedding any tears for her once in jail. My reluctance is, what happens the next time a judge decides to loosen the definition of manslaughter in a way you might disagree with. I see too much room here for abusing the law by declaring we know how to read the mind of a Conrad Roy. So, my heart is with you in this case. But my brain is saying this is bad precedent. cheers
    1
  20. I'll bet this will go all the way to the SJC and be struck down. Just my prediction
    1