It sounds like a perfect world question.... i'm sorry, stupid as it sounds from a wiseguy like me, i'd consult an experienced lawyer, what the world practice of justice has ever done is similar cases.
The only "revolutionary" thought that comes to my mind is introduce a generic concept of "annoyance" into law practice. As in, abuse of public courtesy rules. In this case the boy only needed to have responded once to any of her text something like "Dear Jane, thank you for you interest in my death. Unfortunately, committing suicide at this time might pose a negative impact on my other ongoing projects, like living. So all i can offer you right now is take a broader look at the market, i'm sure that somebody else is dying to die for you, but please STOP ASKING ME TO KILL MYSELF". And all subsequent requests will be a felony.
What's more, with a law like that we can finally sue tv channels for ad breaks!
"Experienced lawyer" - sure, they are always needed. However, case law, statutes, etc. cannot keep pace with the rapid rise of cyber-bullying. So, there is not much to go on. Laws are only recently being enacted, and the jurisprudence will develop rather quickly moving forward as a result. But this case is at the forefront, setting the precedent for others in the future...so we must wait and see how legislation changes, as society does also. It is seemingly impossible to keep up with the evils of humanity. :(
There were groups organized in social networks for teenagers. I never read them but I suppose they exploited instability of teenagers' psyche, willingness to be in some secret or elite group, willingness to escape this cruel world, fear of being called "pussy" and so on.
Teenagers were ordered to do some risky things finally ending by suicide. Sort of a cult,
Well, this is a whole other legal topic for discussion - whether there should a duty to act, or intervene to save a stranger. Thanks for the links, it is informative to read the language of some Russian laws, and interesting for me as a lawyer.
If she send thousands texts, to a guy with known mental proplems. and listen to him dying on the phone without calling for help - then yes. She's a sociopath, who needs to be punished for her actions.
I see little difference here with adult telling little kid to go and do something that will knowingly kill him. Free will BS doesn't apply here.
I'm not an expert on long-term torture, which punishment basically is. To me It's more like how the society can be isolated from her. Killing people is bad, but keeping her locked for 20 years sounds about right. Too bad she'll probably be out in 5, because we need jail space to keep all those super-dangerous marijuana dealers.
In most cases, jail does not keep her isolated from society. Prisoners can still receive mail, I think many have Internet access, and she could send the same manipulative electronic correspondence to some other mentally unstable guy in the future. I do not advocate for jail sentences, but society has not yet formulated a more acceptable or alternative approach to deal with criminals. And about all the people sitting in jail for any type of drug offense (which is a huge part of the US prison population) - they should immediately be freed! :)
Casey Antony - 2. pin_gwinJune 22 2017, 15:48:52 UTC
They already told you about Soviet/Russian law on pushing to suicide. If there are no such law in US, it needs to be addressed. There would be more use of sitting gang of senator's Politburo too preoccupied with short term politics which they are so proud of. At my take, she should stay behind the bars maximum term of all applicable charges. It was at her full power to prevent this death, instead she pushed him to the end. She is destructively heartless and should be insulated. In general, it's a humanity what she is missing. A boy may annoy a girl, he may be ridiculous, it does not mean he deserves to be destroyed. Also, she is 20, it's a level of mental maturity that boys are commonly getting to around 24-25, while he was 18...
Re: Casey Antony - 2. peacetraveler22June 22 2017, 16:20:28 UTC
Of course, he does not deserve to be destroyed for simply being annoying. But at what point must he take responsibility for himself, end the destructive and abusive relationship, block her attempts at contact, etc.? No doubt she is heartless, but there are plenty of such people walking the Earth...it seems there is not enough space or confinement to house them all.
Re: Casey Antony - 2. peacetraveler22June 22 2017, 16:32:31 UTC
Criminal inaction - yes, I think so too. But what about strangers? Should we have a legal duty to rescue, or at least attempt to save a stranger, if we see him or her in peril? Like an injured person on the street, someone hit by a car, having a heart attack, etc.? We mostly only have "Good Samaritan" laws now, which protect people from lawsuits if they do try to help. I do not think most States place a legal duty to do so, though.
Comments 112
The only "revolutionary" thought that comes to my mind is introduce a generic concept of "annoyance" into law practice. As in, abuse of public courtesy rules. In this case the boy only needed to have responded once to any of her text something like "Dear Jane, thank you for you interest in my death. Unfortunately, committing suicide at this time might pose a negative impact on my other ongoing projects, like living. So all i can offer you right now is take a broader look at the market, i'm sure that somebody else is dying to die for you, but please STOP ASKING ME TO KILL MYSELF". And all subsequent requests will be a felony.
What's more, with a law like that we can finally sue tv channels for ad breaks!
Reply
Reply
ru. wikipedia. org/wiki/%D0%94%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%B4%D0%BE_%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B0
See also this:
lenta. ru/news/2017/06/08/deathgroup/
Reply
Reply
I never read them but I suppose they exploited instability of teenagers' psyche, willingness to be in some secret or elite group, willingness to escape this cruel world, fear of being called "pussy" and so on.
Teenagers were ordered to do some risky things finally ending by suicide.
Sort of a cult,
Reply
Reply
http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_10699/bddefeedee59e3a0cd80ee378c510bee13dabeb0/
It list "threats, cruel treatment or systematic humiliation of human dignity of the victim" - as actions - causes which will be punishable.
BTW there also abandonment in face of danger:
http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_10699/abd56fe2fb70b6c813e178ecf6148dda63010a1c/
This is definitely applicable.
Reply
Reply
Reply
I see little difference here with adult telling little kid to go and do something that will knowingly kill him. Free will BS doesn't apply here.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
At my take, she should stay behind the bars maximum term of all applicable charges. It was at her full power to prevent this death, instead she pushed him to the end. She is destructively heartless and should be insulated.
In general, it's a humanity what she is missing. A boy may annoy a girl, he may be ridiculous, it does not mean he deserves to be destroyed. Also, she is 20, it's a level of mental maturity that boys are commonly getting to around 24-25, while he was 18...
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment