|
Here's a question for the lawyers (and, of course, anyone else interested)--
Hypothetical:
If I start writing letters to one of you and we build a relationship through this correspondence, never once meeting in person, what responsibility do I have toward your safety and state of mind with respect to what I write in the letters?
Let's say I eventually write to you telling you I no longer want to correspond and that I've decided I don't like you--in fact, I tell you, several times (all in writing, never in person, and don't forget I'm just a name on stationary to you--and it's not even my real name)--I tell you several times that "the world will be better off without you; no-one's ever going to miss you..." I haven't instructed you to do anything (I never wrote-- "Kill yourself, now." --or anything like that).
If you kill yourself, leaving every indication that my words were what tipped you over the edge, am I responsible for your death?
NOTE-- I would never do anything like that, so don't shoot me--I'm just asking the question.
|
Interesting hypothetical
If you did it with a myspace account, you might get charged and convicted of some misdemeanor offences of accessing computers without authorization...
If what you write could be viewed as intentional and outrageous conduct designed to inflict emotional distress or that a reasonable person would have known would cause emotional distress; that causes a visible and provable illness (depression leading to suicide). Then I'd take a run at intentional infliction of nervous shock. But that's just what I learned last month in torts.
Like say, if I was a depressed and mentally unstable teenager, you knew this, and began and ended the relationship with the aim of causing me distress..
|
Here's a question for the lawyers (and, of course, anyone else interested)--
If you kill yourself, leaving every indication that my words were what tipped you over the edge, am I responsible for your death?
It's a good question. Unfortunately, I don't think you go far enough in this particular case.
I think what makes this an issue is that the person involved MEANT to do harm. We're not talking about a failed relationship in real life, we're talking about someone's deliberate attempt to cause emotional distress on someone else through fraudulent means. In this instance, I think the defendants are fully culpable and I don't have an issue with a guilty verdict.
In a more generalized scenario such as you present, I don't believe there'd be a problem, but the courts are getting further and further into the "intent versus impact" realm and it's difficult to say any more.
|
Depending on what state you live in, there are what they call 'duty of care' laws.
Basically you can held responsible for things that occur to other people through negligence. A popular example they used in my Business Law class was, if you didn't remove the snow off your sidewalk and someone fell due to you being negligent, then you are responsible.
In the example you give, none of those criteria were met. You were not negligent in your actions. Even if you said, "kill yourself", you didn't hand someone a weapon and instruct them how to do it. But again this all depends on the laws of your state/locale. You didn't commit mail fraud, so the letter has no relevance. There was not contractual obligation to either party.
Now morally or ethically, yeah you wouldnt want to do that cuz you can be held for civil action lawsuits (civil suits only need 51% of a jury vote), but criminally you shouldn't be held responsible and even if you are it needs to be 100%.
I can;t believe you made me remember crap from law classes over 10 yrs ago.
As TigerDave said, I think the main question here is intent. When you began the relationship, did you do it out of a desire simply to connect with another person, to pass the time, or merely to mutually blow off steam with a stranger, or did you begin the relationship with the express purpose of causing harm to the second party (and if so, can anyone prove it), regardless of if you knew them or not?
|
|
For the sake of argument, let's say I did it on purpose.
I should say that I wonder how far we can legally prosecute intent that doesn't include physical action, like pushing you down the stairs, or distracting you while you're crossing the street. If I could be successfully prosecuted for heckling a person into suicide, then we're not far removed from convicting people of killing with witchcraft and incantations.
OK, so that's more dramatic than is necessary, but the point I'm making is--
The very idea that I can be legally responsible (morals aside) for your mental state and suicide simply because of something I said to you--and in this case, said at a distance, whether it's the letter in my example, or 1s and 0s in a Chat Room or website--is tantamount to prosecuting me for sorcery.
It sounds like a stretch, but if I can go to jail because you kill yourself after I write to you that 'you're better off dead,' then I could logically be prosecuted when you commit suicide because I tell you that I wrote your name down and then burned the paper, so you should go ahead and just end it now.
|
|
It sounds like a stretch, but if I can go to jail because you kill yourself after I write to you that 'you're better off dead,' then I could logically be prosecuted when you commit suicide because I tell you that I wrote your name down and then burned the paper, so you should go ahead and just end it now.
Again, it is a matter of intent. If you tell said person that you wrote their name on a piece of paper and then burned it so their should end it now, knowing that they believe in witchcraft and with a desire to inflict emotional harm then yes you could, and should, logically be prosecuted. Again, the central component in all of this is intent. If you intend to manipulate a person's emptional state to the point where they are suicidal, then why shouldn't you be held accountible for those actions? Responsibility is a two way street.
|
|
As for Goody Proctor:
"Every one who fraudulently
(a) pretends to exercise or to use any kind of witchcraft, sorcery, enchantment or conjuration,
(b) undertakes, for a consideration, to tell fortunes, or
(c) pretends from his skill in or knowledge of an occult or crafty science to discover where or in what manner anything that is supposed to have been stolen or lost may be found,
is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction."
The max penalty for a summary conviction is 6 months in provincial jail.
Section 361 defines a false pretence:
(1) "A false pretence is a representation of a matter of fact either present or past, made by words or otherwise, that is known by the person who makes it to be false and that is made with a fraudulent intent to induce the person to whom it is made to act on it.
There's a big slippery slope here. How do you measure intent?
Also, at what point do you have to hold people responsible for their own actions? I've spent a lot of my life suicidal... I'm bi-polar, it goes with the territory. But suicide, the actual act of suicide, is an intensely personal thing.
For instance, if, in this discussion, I was to discuss the two ways of slitting your wrists, and which one was more likely to succeed, and why... am I providing an "instruction manual" for suicide for which I could be prosecuted?
What if I discuss my own reasons for depression, stating with certainty that they are cause for suicide without making sure to use appropriate "I" statements. Someone in an even more fragile state reads it and suicides... am I culpable? I did, after all, state with certainty that such a state was good reason to not only want to die, but to follow through with the act.
What if I, in a support group for bi-polar folks, happen to be the last person to talk to the person. They're bi-polar, so I know they're in a fragile state, but I'm in a depressive when I talk to them and unload about why I want to suicide and how awful my life is. I even talk about my plan. Then they execute it. Am I culpable then? I gave them a blue print and a means and I knew they were in a fragile state but I unloaded on them anyway. What is my culpability?
Depression is an illness, yes. But committing suicide is a choice. I'd even argue that it is a valid, if cowardly choice.
- Ashavan
There's a big slippery slope here. How do you measure intent?
Also, at what point do you have to hold people responsible for their own actions? I've spent a lot of my life suicidal... I'm bi-polar, it goes with the territory. But suicide, the actual act of suicide, is an intensely personal thing.
For instance, if, in this discussion, I was to discuss the two ways of slitting your wrists, and which one was more likely to succeed, and why... am I providing an "instruction manual" for suicide for which I could be prosecuted?
What if I discuss my own reasons for depression, stating with certainty that they are cause for suicide without making sure to use appropriate "I" statements. Someone in an even more fragile state reads it and suicides... am I culpable? I did, after all, state with certainty that such a state was good reason to not only want to die, but to follow through with the act.
What if I, in a support group for bi-polar folks, happen to be the last person to talk to the person. They're bi-polar, so I know they're in a fragile state, but I'm in a depressive when I talk to them and unload about why I want to suicide and how awful my life is. I even talk about my plan. Then they execute it. Am I culpable then? I gave them a blue print and a means and I knew they were in a fragile state but I unloaded on them anyway. What is my culpability?
Depression is an illness, yes. But committing suicide is a choice. I'd even argue that it is a valid, if cowardly choice.
- Ashavan
Do the medicines for bipolar disorders help you any or are they ineffective?
Here's a question for the lawyers (and, of course, anyone else interested)--
Hypothetical:
If I start writing letters to one of you and we build a relationship through this correspondence, never once meeting in person, what responsibility do I have toward your safety and state of mind with respect to what I write in the letters?
Let's say I eventually write to you telling you I no longer want to correspond and that I've decided I don't like you--in fact, I tell you, several times (all in writing, never in person, and don't forget I'm just a name on stationary to you--and it's not even my real name)--I tell you several times that "the world will be better off without you; no-one's ever going to miss you..." I haven't instructed you to do anything (I never wrote-- "Kill yourself, now." --or anything like that).
If you kill yourself, leaving every indication that my words were what tipped you over the edge, am I responsible for your death?
NOTE-- I would never do anything like that, so don't shoot me--I'm just asking the question.
*BLAM*
Oops. Heh heh, trigger's slippy. You okay?|
|
There's a big slippery slope here. How do you measure intent?
Also, at what point do you have to hold people responsible for their own actions?
The issue of intent is often key in criminal cases. It is the difference between being charged with murder and manslaughter in a homicide case. Intent is sometimes difficult to judge, but it can also be easy to judge, but it is always important to understand. Yes when a person commits suicide, they make a choice and should be the responsible for that choice, but if someone manipulated them into that choice then they should be held responsible as well.
|
|
The issue of intent is often key in criminal cases. It is the difference between being charged with murder and manslaughter in a homicide case. Intent is sometimes difficult to judge, but it can also be easy to judge, but it is always important to understand. Yes when a person commits suicide, they make a choice and should be the responsible for that choice, but if someone manipulated them into that choice then they should be held responsible as well.There's a big slippery slope here. How do you measure intent?
Also, at what point do you have to hold people responsible for their own actions?
And then, I guess, the state would argue the case through the defendant's use of psychological manipulation, and it would never be a case of reviving Old World witch trials.
For the sake of argument, let's say I did it on purpose.
I should say that I wonder how far we can legally prosecute intent that doesn't include physical action, like pushing you down the stairs, or distracting you while you're crossing the street. If I could be successfully prosecuted for heckling a person into suicide, then we're not far removed from convicting people of killing with witchcraft and incantations.
OK, so that's more dramatic than is necessary, but the point I'm making is--
The very idea that I can be legally responsible (morals aside) for your mental state and suicide simply because of something I said to you--and in this case, said at a distance, whether it's the letter in my example, or 1s and 0s in a Chat Room or website--is tantamount to prosecuting me for sorcery.
It sounds like a stretch, but if I can go to jail because you kill yourself after I write to you that 'you're better off dead,' then I could logically be prosecuted when you commit suicide because I tell you that I wrote your name down and then burned the paper, so you should go ahead and just end it now.
Interesting topic. I take (polite) issue with the implication of 'simply because of something I said to you.' The law recognizes that speech can be extremely powerful, which is why I could be charged with a crime if I organized supporters, stood on a soapbox and riled them up so much that they started smashing store windows, attacking police officers, etc. Here's one example of state law:
Under § 240.08 of the N.Y. Penal Law, a person is guilty of inciting to riot when he urges ten or more persons to engage in tumultuous and violent conduct of a kind likely to create public alarm.
|
|
I wish there was a PM function of some type so I could confirm with you if this is stemming from what I believe it is.
This was brought up in discussion during lunch the other day at work. Literally, someone said, "Next they'll be sending people to jail for giving you the evil eye." The discussion was over the recent conclusion to the myspace suicide trial in Missouri. I was trying to re-imagine the scenario so as not to necessarily divert the topic to direct discussion of the actual case.
|
|
There's a big slippery slope here. How do you measure intent?
I don't believe the slope is as slippery as you believe. Just stating that I intend to do harm is enough to be brought up on charges (see the definition of ASSAULT.)
I don't believe the rest of your posting lends merit to this example as discussed. Your discussing your issues is one thing - your making a deliberate plan to attempt to create a mental state in someone of such a fragile state is another.
|
|
And then, I guess, the state would argue the case through the defendant's use of psychological manipulation, and it would never be a case of reviving Old World witch trials.The issue of intent is often key in criminal cases. It is the difference between being charged with murder and manslaughter in a homicide case. Intent is sometimes difficult to judge, but it can also be easy to judge, but it is always important to understand. Yes when a person commits suicide, they make a choice and should be the responsible for that choice, but if someone manipulated them into that choice then they should be held responsible as well.There's a big slippery slope here. How do you measure intent?
Also, at what point do you have to hold people responsible for their own actions?
The witch trials were never about psychological manipulation, at least on the part of the person being accused of witchcraft. They mostly were about forced conformity and the persecution of the "other." In fact, new research into the Salem Witch Trials indicate that were we to use the motivational test then we would jail many of the accusers for manipulating the legal system to prosocute and execute certain people for personal gain. Sort of a "homicide by cop" if you will.
|
|
Groklaw has posted a brief filed by the EFF (as what you folks call a friend of the court) in the Drew case. I think it brings up a lot of the slippery slope arguments that have people worried.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20081128005538214
I don't think the criminal law should be interpreted creatively to catch or create new sorts of crimes. We shouldn't have common law offences. But I do think manipulating someone into killing themselves is wrong and deserving of punishment.