More Proof Judges Are Ignorant Dipshits

[jaF0]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/michelle-carter-text-suicide-trial-verdict-guilty/


:: shakes head ::


No wonder this country is so fucked up.

 

[phrodeau]

Should have chosen a jury trial.

 

[Freudian_Slit]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/michelle-carter-text-suicide-trial-verdict-guilty/


:: shakes head ::


No wonder this country is so fucked up.

Well that sets an astonishingly dumb precedent.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I looked for the original thread when the news broke, but I could not find it.



I've also read that the reason for a judge trial was that the trial would have been turned into a circus if a jury was involved. At any rate this will be appealed by the defense and we'll se where it goes from there, but in the light of this week's shooting, maybe a lot of people will tone down their rhetoric....

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Well that sets an astonishingly dumb precedent.

Is it not in keeping with the mindset that champions the notions of hate speech and hate crimes?

 

[Freudian_Slit]

Is it not in keeping with the mindset that champions the notions of hate speech and hate crimes?

Is it in keeping with the mindset that champions the notions of responsibility and self-determination?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Yes, the young man was responsible for his life.


And like many stupid young men, he decided to cede this power and responsibility to someone else.

 

[milehighcityman]

Hmm, this does surprise me somewhat. While this young woman seems to be a horrible and incredibly selfish person, I just didn't think that what she did fit the elements of the crime as the statute sets forth. If Massachusetts wants this behavior covered under the manslaughter statute, they should have asked their legislature to amend the statute to do so. This decision, if not overturned, could have some pretty wild unintended consequences. I do believe there is a good chance it will be overturned. One advantage to waiving the jury trial and having the court decide the case is that appeals courts are more likely to overturn a judge decision than a jury decision.

 

[HisArpy]

Is it not in keeping with the mindset that champions the notions of hate speech and hate crimes?

I think it was a bad decision and that it will be overturned on appeal.

However, there is a basis, however slim, to support the decision.

On the one hand, she has no duty under the law to take ANY action to prevent her boyfriends death once he began on that path. Being an observer, even contemporaneously through social media, doesn't change that. That is the law and was part of her defense as well as free speech.

But.

On the other hand, were her texts merely those of an observer cheering for a specific outcome? At what point does someone go from "observer" to participant when it comes to urging someone to kill themselves? Were there any texts from her telling him how to do it? Any texts telling him to set it up and where / when?

Or were her texts merely those telling him he was a worthless person who should kill himself? (Which is pretty vile but not criminal.)

Based on the last text where she told him to get back in to the truck, the facts in this case are not so clear cut between free speech and impermissible speech. That text alone is insufficient in my mind to prove criminal culpability for the death of her boyfriend. But, coupled with other texts (the contents of which I don't know) it could be enough to tip the scale.

It will be up to the appeals court to decide if the balance tips one way or the other. Either way, it's sad that once again someone died for no reason other than social media harassment ad bullying.

 

[Wrong Element]

Manslaughter is tricky because it's not easy to point to the actual law that was violated here. Being an immature asshole is not illegal, and then there's her own apparent mental health issues to consider, which is why I expect the sentence to be token.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Well that sets an astonishingly dumb precedent.

Not likely. Trial courts, especially juvenile courts, are the lowest tier of the judicial system. At best, they might set "persuasive precedent" for other parallel lower courts. No lower court opinion would be binding on other lower courts unless a higher appellate court would later adopt that earlier precedent as a binding legal principle.

Little about this decision argues for it being lastingly "persuasive."

 

[Freudian_Slit]

Not likely. Trial courts, especially juvenile courts, are the lowest tier of the judicial system. At best, they might set "persuasive precedent" for other parallel lower courts. No lower court opinion would be binding on other lower courts unless a higher appellate court would later adopt that earlier precedent as a binding legal principle.

Little about this decision argues for it being lastingly "persuasive."

That's good to hear.

 

[Freudian_Slit]

That's good to hear.

Being a rube but interested with legal theory I decided to do a little extra background reading about the distinction between persuasive and binding precedent. Link. I welcome any more authoritative sources.

 

[VicTimmy]

On the other hand when boyfriends begged the girlfriends to please keep the baby and the girlfriend's murder the baby the girlfriends are heroes and lorded and the boyfriends are seen as his evil and manipulative them self-serving and controlling

 

[HisArpy]

On the other hand when boyfriends begged the girlfriends to please keep the baby and the girlfriend's murder the baby the girlfriends are heroes and lorded and the boyfriends are seen as his evil and manipulative them self-serving and controlling

Death is death. Though we should do all we can to preserve life, not every death is criminal. Using emotional tags to try to make it seem that way is the result of failed logic.

 

[VicTimmy]

Death is death. Though we should do all we can to preserve life, not every death is criminal. Using emotional tags to try to make it seem that way is the result of failed logic.

I think my comment is analogous to this issue on the discussion

 

[jaF0]

Is it not in keeping with the mindset that champions the notions of hate speech and hate crimes?

This was communication between two private individuals. It was not intended to be public and did not target any general group.

 

[HisArpy]

I think my comment is analogous to this issue on the discussion

It's not. It's an attempt to deflect the conversation to one which is emotion based. It is irrelevant to the question of whether vile text messages can legally be the cause of suicide and by extension manslaughter.

 

[jaF0]

As Governor, I would be signing papers for a FULL pardon and expungement of her record. Then I would be publicly admonishing both the Prosecutor and Judge.

 

[Libsam]

Well that sets an astonishingly dumb precedent.

Yep, this is the first step to try to get hate speech laws.

 

[EternalFantasies]

Trial by judge was the right call. Juries risk going on emotion.

The problem here is a bad defense. A reverse psychology theory alone could cast doubt on intent and the judge can no longer assert she intended to do so.

But, do we know for real what she intended? these text messages are a bit too far too, and the insisting and request to promise to do it..... wonder what her motivations were.

 

[Libsam]

Oh shit, I just read that article... she listened to him suffocate himself? That's kind of fucked up.

 

[EternalFantasies]

Yep, this is the first step to try to get hate speech laws.

And that would be scary, and makes you think if the methods used aren't the same that made that young man go steal a north korean politcal banner.

 

[HisArpy]

Oh shit, I just read that article... she listened to him suffocate himself? That's kind of fucked up.

But is it manslaughter?

 

[Libsam]

But is it manslaughter?

No. The definition of suicide is the total opposite of manslaughter. You choose to kill yourself.