Teen on trial for goading and urging her boyfriend to commit suicide

StormChord said:

As far as I'm concerned, she deserves the forthcoming ruination of her life and future prospects.

Click to expand...

So let's pretend you're this girl's friend. You've hung out with her during lunch. You've hung out after school. Now you've read this on the news. Are you going to be this girl's friend? Do you think she'll have friends? If this goes to court and she's found not guilty, would that change your attitude toward her or not? Socially, she's already castrated.

ElaineA said:

Oh yeah? Like what? What would you trust her to do? This woman whose lawyer is blaming the victim. Do you think she knows she committed an act of evil? I don't. If it were my kid she'd incited to suicide I'd sell whatever I had to and pay the $25,000 myself.

Click to expand...

It's already been suggested - probation, counseling. She's already going to be without friends now. Putting her in jail won't do anything. Also, being evil isn't against the law, nor should it. Why? Everyone has a different definition and if the statute states, "It's illegal to be evil," people will be arrested for obscure, subjective things like, "Adultery," and "Cheating playing Monopoly." Fact is, she probably won't go to jail anyway.

LittlePinto said:

Not just her circle of acquaintances and friends. It's on the Internet now. She might get respite if she changes her name, but if employers check her previous name, it'll all come out.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Her life is over, regardless of if jail time exists.

ErezMA said:

So let's pretend you're this girl's friend. You've hung out with her during lunch. You've hung out after school. Now you've read this on the news. Are you going to be this girl's friend? Do you think she'll have friends? If this goes to court and she's found not guilty, would that change your attitude toward her or not? Socially, she's already castrated.

Click to expand...

I know. She deserves it.

I hate to say this, but some people out there will inevitably think she's cool for being able to do this. It is not every woman who can drive a guy to suicide. Mass murderers have groupies. I'm betting she'll have some.

I'll bet still others will believe her lie that she was roped into it, or that she only wanted to see him out of his pain, or that her brain was "half baked," and have sympathy for her. Especially because she's a pretty girl with a deceptively sweet, wholesome face.

Still others will buy that hey, she's young and a few years down the line, she can be rehabilitated. You know, like Anne Perry.

I think she's pure fucking sociopathic evil, and I will never buy that she can be anything else. I'd love to see her locked away forever, and damn the cost. Since that won't happen, I'd like to think she'll at least pay the price in loneliness.

But I don't think she will.

How do you know putting her in jail won't do anything? It would punish her, for one thing. Restrict her. Force her to go to counselling while she's under state control. Eliminate her access to the internet. I didn't say being evil was against the law. Inciting someone to suicide can be illegal. Merciless bullying can be illegal. I think she should face punishment.

No, her life isn't over. Her victim's life is over. She gets to live. Just because you think she's socially castrated doesn't make it true. There are lots of places in this world she could go and live in anonymity just fine.

Not all her friends will dump her. She'll get a lot of notoriety that may lead to groupies/hangers on who want some of her lime-light, corrupted or not. Some friends won't believe it of her, others won't care. Etc. Her life is not over.

Although if it was I couldn't say I'd feel too bad for her.

CassandraW said:

I'll bet still others will believe her lie that she was roped into it, or that she only wanted to see him out of his pain, or that her brain was "half baked," and have sympathy for her. Especially because she's a pretty girl with a deceptively sweet, wholesome face.

Click to expand...

I'm not going to deny that. If Hitler, Hussein, and Tsarnaev have fans, she will too, if not already.

Still others will buy that hey, she's young and a few years down the line, she can be rehabilitated. You know, like Anne Perry.

Click to expand...

Well we don't know she's a sociopath, a psychopath or anything like that. There are tests to figure that out. Still, you can't assume there's no rehabilitation. Of course not everyone can, but if we're going to argue there's no rehabilitation exists, there strengthens an argument to go straight to the death penalty for many.

ElaineA said:

How do you know putting her in jail won't do anything? It would punish her, for one thing. Restrict her. Force her to go to counselling while she's under state control. Eliminate her access to the internet. I didn't say being evil was against the law. Inciting someone to suicide can be illegal. Merciless bullying can be illegal. I think she should face punishment.

No, her life isn't over. Her victim's life is over. She gets to live. Just because you think she's socially castrated doesn't make it true. There are lots of places in this world she could go and live in anonymity just fine.

Click to expand...

Literally? Yeah, she still gets to live. She'd still get to live in prison too, but that's not the point. Prison isn't going to do anything. Restrict her, force her to go to counseling? She could always be under house arrest without internet access? You could claim that she could look out the window and bully people that way, but then she could do the same thing at prison and I'm sure there are a lot more depressed people in prison than out of it. (Percentage wise, at least. Prison's not exactly Candy Land.)

The only place where someone could try to be illegal is the internet, but without it, she's a killer and people will know it's her if she's in a grocery store, a bank or anyone in view of anyone else.

CassandraW said:

Still others will buy that hey, she's young and a few years down the line, she can be rehabilitated. You know, like Anne Perry.

Click to expand...

Have I missed something about Anne Perry? I thought she WAS successfully rehabilitated...

So if it worked for her, why not for this girl?

ErezMA said:

Well we don't know she's a sociopath, a psychopath or anything like that. There are tests to figure that out. Still, you can't assume there's no rehabilitation. Of course not everyone can, but if we're going to argue there's no rehabilitation exists, there strengthens an argument to go straight to the death penalty for many.



Literally? Yeah, she still gets to live. She'd still get to live in prison too, but that's not the point. Prison isn't going to do anything. Restrict her, force her to go to counseling? She could always be under house arrest without internet access? You could claim that she could look out the window and bully people that way, but then she could do the same thing at prison and I'm sure there are a lot more depressed people in prison than out of it. (Percentage wise, at least. Prison's not exactly Candy Land.)

The only place where someone could try to be illegal is the internet, but without it, she's a killer and people will know it's her if she's in a grocery store, a bank or anyone in view of anyone else.

Click to expand...

I'm curious about whether you actually read any of the text exchanges between them.

She knew the guy for two years, met him, exchanged thousands of messages, called him her boyfriend. Yet she pushed and goaded him into suicide, pushed harder when he seemed reluctant, talked him back into the car when he had second thoughts and stepped out. Then she used the death she caused -- I really do not think that boy would be dead were it not for her -- to gain attention and sympathy for herself. She knew this was wrong. She tried to cover it up, panicked when she realized it might come out. And now she and her lawyers are trying to claim she was "roped into" it by her victim. God, I'm trying to imagine how that boy's parents, family and friends are feeling right now.

I don't need a test to tell me this is a callous, manipulative person without a conscience, without empathy, and no regard for right and wrong or the rights of others.

I do not believe that a person capable of doing such a thing in cold blood is capable of rehabilitation. It is possible she will never do such a thing again, if she has nothing to gain from it, and/or can be prevented. But that's about as far as I'd go.

Moreover, I really do not give a shit if prison "does anything" for her. If I could keep her locked up forever, I would. Alas, I have no such power.

(I don't see this as an argument for the death penalty, though. I oppose the death penalty because I am all too aware of how many mistakes and miscarriages of justice our system makes, and if you're dead, an apology isn't going to cut it. But I think some people and some crimes amply deserve it, frankly.)

ElaineA said:

When you accuse the dead person of roping her into this scheme, it's not QUOTE victim blaming. It's actual victim blaming. And being married to a lawyer, I'm going to disagree with the other part, as well. The attorney's job is to create doubt in the jury's mind such that they won't convict. That needn't include blaming the dead person for the scheme unless there is ample evidence that's what happened. In this case, there isn't.

Click to expand...

Yes, the attorney's job is to create doubt, which includes suggesting an alternate theory of the crime. It may not be pleasant to hear a defense attorney trying to put responsibility on the victim, but his obligation is to his client, not to people who will be offended by his arguments.

Captcha said:

Have I missed something about Anne Perry? I thought she WAS successfully rehabilitated...

So if it worked for her, why not for this girl?

Click to expand...

To the bolded: She's a legal adult, a woman. Her age should under no circumstances effect how she is treated by the courts if convicted of what they can make stick. Anne Perry was 15 when she commited her crime, the brain changes a lot from 15 to 18 even though it isn't fully developed for a few more years after that. An 18 year old knows and understands things a 15 year old may not, things this young woman demonstrated a clear understanding of.

Captcha said:

Have I missed something about Anne Perry? I thought she WAS successfully rehabilitated...

So if it worked for her, why not for this girl?

Click to expand...

derail/

I don't know if we can say whether Anne Perry is "rehabilitated" in the sense of being genuinely remorseful. We can only say she did not kill anyone else.

Anne Perry committed a particularly horrible murder for a particular cold-blooded reason -- she wanted to be with her best friend so they could live out their dream of being famous writers together. Ironically, she IS a famous writer. She has her dream. She has absolutely no reason to commit another crime. She could only lose by it. I wonder, though, what would happen if she did not have her dream, if she did have something to gain from it.

I have a hard time believing you could bash your friend's mother over the head more than 20 times with a brick until she died -- just think about what that act would entail, and how long it would take -- particularly for such a shallow reason, and yet be a good, decent, empathetic person capable of genuine remorse.

/end derail

In any event, I used her not as proof that this girl can't be "rehabilitated," whatever any of us might mean by that word. I used her example to cut against what several people in this thread have claimed -- that as a result of this heinous act, the girl will lead a miserable, lonely life and that will be her punishment. That might not be true at all.

Amadan said:

Yes, the attorney's job is to create doubt, which includes suggesting an alternate theory of the crime. It may not be pleasant to hear a defense attorney trying to put responsibility on the victim, but his obligation is to his client, not to people who will be offended by his arguments.

Click to expand...

I hope that's cold comfort to this guy and other people who think that absolves them of the moral responsibility for supporting this sort of horrible treatment of victims when victims are denied justice and perpetrators are able to rationalize their behavior with such arguments and thus create more victims of these crimes.

ErezMA said:

Well we don't know she's a sociopath, a psychopath or anything like that.

Click to expand...

We kinda do. Her behavior isn't on the normal spectrum.

ErezMA said:

Literally? Yeah, she still gets to live. She'd still get to live in prison too, but that's not the point. Prison isn't going to do anything. Restrict her, force her to go to counseling? She could always be under house arrest without internet access? You could claim that she could look out the window and bully people that way, but then she could do the same thing at prison and I'm sure there are a lot more depressed people in prison than out of it. (Percentage wise, at least. Prison's not exactly Candy Land.)

Click to expand...

Yes, literally. Unlike her victim. Were he my son and this woman is cut loose with a "be good now," I'd be out of my mind. She delivered the ultimate sentence on him. She intended to be the architect of his death. She deserves real punishment. And prison not being Candy Land is exactly the point. I ask again, how do you know prison isn't going to do anything?

ErezMA said:

The only place where someone could try to be illegal is the internet, but without it, she's a killer and people will know it's her if she's in a grocery store, a bank or anyone in view of anyone else.

Click to expand...

I don't even know what this means. Are you saying she will be absolutely be recognized the world over? You think someone in some quiet town in...say, Bulgaria, would recognize her? Hell, I can virtually guarantee no one in our family's tiny village in northern Italy would know who she was. I don't think my husband or college son have heard boo about this story. I would bet the rest of my kid's college fund she could walk into my husband's office and he wouldn't know her at all. She'll be just fine, if not now, in a few years. Alive and going about her life, even IF someone occasionally recognizes her. Unless she's convicted of a felony, she'll never have to divulge any of this.

I don't think it's too much to expect the justice system to impose an actual penalty on her, even if it's not a fraction of what she meted out. If you don't believe in jailing criminals because "cost" and "it won't do anything," I guess we just have to agree to disagree.

CassandraW said:

derail/

I don't know if we can say whether Anne Perry is "rehabilitated" in the sense of being genuinely remorseful. We can only say she did not kill anyone else.

Anne Perry committed a particularly horrible murder for a particular cold-blooded reason -- she wanted to be with her best friend so they could live out their dream of being famous writers together. Ironically, she IS a famous writer. She has her dream. She has absolutely no reason to commit another crime. She could only lose by it. I wonder, though, what would happen if she did not have her dream, if she did have something to gain from it.

I have a hard time believing you could bash your friend's mother over the head more than 20 times with a brick until she died -- just think about what that act would entail, and how long it would take -- particularly for such a shallow reason, and yet be a good, decent, empathetic person capable of genuine remorse.

/end derail

In any event, I used her not as proof that this girl can't be "rehabilitated," whatever any of us might mean by that word. I used her example to cut against what several people in this thread have claimed -- that as a result of this heinous act, the girl will lead a miserable, lonely life and that will be her punishment. That might not be true at all.

Click to expand...

To use this as a jump off point. Does anyone else find what seems to be the recent habit of trying to excuse people for these types of crimes because they're "only 18" disturbing? Eighteen is the legal age of majority, people can vote, have sex with whoever they want that's also legal, join the millitary etc. If we're going to extended some warped version of "think of the poor kid who did this unspeakable act" to legal adults, we should probably be placing more restrictions on 18 year olds than we currently do. Since, you know, they're still just kids and don't know their own strength.

Lillith1991 said:

To use this as a jump off point. Does anyone else find what seems to be the recent habit of trying to excuse people for these types of crimes because they're "only 18" disturbing? Eighteen is the legal age of majority, people can vote, have sex with whoever they want that's also legal, join the millitary etc. If we're going to extended some warped version of "think of the poor kid who did this unspeakable act" to legal adults, we should probably be placing more restrictions on 18 year olds than we currently do. Since, you know, they're still just kids and don't know their own strength.

Click to expand...

agree.

I understand the handwringing when you're dealing with a ten-year-old. Eighteen is an adult.

I agree that 18 years is mostly adult, although I'm confused about the US drinking age if 18 is COMPLETELY adult.

But, really, I did more stupid things at 18 than I did at 28. I didn't do that many more stupid things at 28 than I did at 38. I think a lot of people still have a lot of growing up to do when they're 18.

Lillith1991 said:

Does anyone else find what seems to be the recent habit of trying to excuse people for these types of crimes because they're "only 18" disturbing?

Click to expand...

Having raised 3 children to 18 and beyond, yes, I find it extremely disturbing.

Liosse de Velishaf said:

I hope that's cold comfort to this guy and other people who think that absolves them of the moral responsibility for supporting this sort of horrible treatment of victims when victims are denied justice and perpetrators are able to rationalize their behavior with such arguments and thus create more victims of these crimes.

Click to expand...

Well, you could always do away with an adversarial court system, or presumption of innocence, or proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Barring that, there isn't much way trials aren't going to be awful for victims.

Captcha said:

I agree that 18 years is mostly adult, although I'm confused about the US drinking age if 18 is COMPLETELY adult.

But, really, I did more stupid things at 18 than I did at 28. I didn't do that many more stupid things at 28 than I did at 38. I think a lot of people still have a lot of growing up to do when they're 18.

Click to expand...

yes, most of us have more impulse control as we get older. Also, we've learned from past mistakes, our own and others'. To some degree, I cut a bit more mental slack when it comes to young offenders doing dumb, impulsive crimes, particularly if there was some catalyst that edged them on.

But this is not an impulsive act. This was as deliberate, thought-out, and cold-blooded as it gets. Nothing stupid about it. Just evil.

(Personally, I have never thought it made sense for the drinking age to be 21 when the age for pretty much everything else is 18. I understand it was to reduce drunk driving. I say hike up the penalties for (and the education about) drunk driving, but it's damn silly that a soldier can fight for three years before he can legally drink a beer.)

Amadan said:

Well, you could always do away with an adversarial court system, or presumption of innocence, or proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Barring that, there isn't much way trials aren't going to be awful for victims.

Click to expand...

We've been down that road before in P&CE, and I have no desire to drag this thread there, too. All I'm saying is, just because it's his job, it doesn't mean it isn't a horrible thing to do to a victim, especially for a very unambiguous crime. If you want to defend presumption of innocence and the adversarial court system, you have to accept responsibility for the shitty parts just as much as you praise it for the good parts.

Liosse de Velishaf said:

We've been down that road before in P&CE, and I have no desire to drag this thread there, too. All I'm saying is, just because it's his job, it doesn't mean it isn't a horrible thing to do to a victim, especially for a very unambiguous crime. If you want to defend presumption of innocence and the adversarial court system, you have to accept responsibility for the shitty parts just as much as you praise it for the good parts.

Click to expand...

Sure. I wouldn't want to be a defense attorney. But I am glad there are people who are willing to do it, shitty parts and all.

You're either a crappy defense attorney, or your client is guilty as hell if you have to resort to victim blaming. But then, why take the high road when the low one is so easy.

Liosse de Velishaf said:

You're either a crappy defense attorney, or your client is guilty as hell if you have to resort to victim blaming.

Click to expand...

No. It doesn't work like that.

Liosse de Velishaf said:

You're either a crappy defense attorney, or your client is guilty as hell if you have to resort to victim blaming.

Click to expand...

Well, the facts of the case seem reasonably clear - she's definitely guilty of something. It's the defense's job to make what she did seem less objectionable and less criminal. I don't think that makes them crappy attorneys.

Amadan said:

No. It doesn't work like that.

Click to expand...

It kinda does, actually.