MA - Conrad Roy, 18, urged by friend, commits suicide, Fairhaven, 13 July 2014

[jjenny]

Charles Manson comes to mind. He's in prison for 'encouraging' his followers to kill, but he didn't do the killing himself. MC encouraged Conrad Roy to kill himself. Isn't this somewhat similar?

ITA. If she encouraged him to go kill someone else, she surely could be charged with conspiracy to commit murder, etc. If he was reluctant to go kill someone, but she send him text telling him to do it, would we be discussing freedom of speech in connection to the crime?
People are charged day in and day out for conspiracy to commit murder.
So why should she get off scott free just because she was encouraging him to kill himself?

 

[Cubby]

http://http://www.southcoasttoday.com/article/20150302/NEWS/150309869

Wow, and is it me or does she speak condescendingly to his mother, almost like she's the adult, older, wiser one...

Info on texts at above link. Warning, it is a heartbreaking read.

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

ITA. If she encouraged him to go kill someone else, she surely could be charged with conspiracy to commit murder, etc. If he was reluctant to go kill someone, but she send him text telling him to do it, would we be discussing freedom of speech in connection to the crime?
People are charged day in and day out for conspiracy to commit murder.
So why should she get off scott free just because she was encouraging him to kill himself?

Murder is a crime. Suicide is not a crime. Btw I don't condone her actions. Sure, if someone conspires to commit murder they will be charged with conspiracy to commit murder. That's not what happened in this case.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Sorry but you are wrong.

Melchert-Dinkel was charged with aiding the suicides of Drybrough and Kajouji and convicted in 2011 by Rice County Judge Thomas Neuville, who found that he “intentionally advised and encouraged” the victims to take their lives.

Defense attorney Terry Watkins appealed, saying Melchert-Dinkel’s actions might have been immoral, but they were not illegal. Melchert-Dinkel remained free on appeal.



The justices found that*part of Minnesota’s law that bans someone from “encouraging” or “advising” suicide is unconstitutional because it encompasses speech protected under the First Amendment.


But the justices upheld part of the law*that makes it a crime to “assist” in someone’s suicide —*and said speech could be considered assisting.



http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2014/1...ide-gets-jail/


So depending on her states supreme justice. She can be found guilty.

I don't mind admitting I'm wrong, but I really don't understand what you are saying I am wrong about. Please clarify. Thanks.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

if he was intoxicated beyond the point of reason and she encouraged him to do this would you think she had committed a crime?

if he was certifiably mentally ill beyond the point of reason and she encouraged him to do this would you think she had committed a crime?

if he was very young and unable to fully understand the consequences and she encouraged him to do this would you think she had committed a crime?

He was none of those things. So I don't understand the point of the questions.

 

[groovygrl]

Info on texts at above link. Warning, it is a heartbreaking read.

I wonder what he meant by memory issues. In the email she sent that was supposed to be quoting him, "he" keeps talking about not being able to remember things.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

In my heart I do believe had she not even been a factor in the equation he would not have went through with it.

Snipped for focus (just jumping off the post)

This may well have been true. From a legal standpoint, though, (and IANAL) I don't see how this could ever be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[al66pine]

Melchert-Dinkel, criminal charges & legal proceedings

Short version:
Minn law advising, encouraging, or assisting suicide
2011 - Trial court - conviction for aiding suicide for intentionally advising, encouraging, or assisting suicide
2012 - Minn. Ct of Appeals confirmed.
2014 - Minn Supreme Court reversed the conviction, declared Mn statute unconstitutional in part.
Ct ruled merely advising or encouraging suicide was speech protected by First A'mt of US Const,
but speech which actually assisted a suicide was not protected. Sup Ct remanded to trial ct, to make determination of whether def. actually assisted the suicide per the statute.

IIUC, under this ruling, a def could lawfully tell, phone, or text to someone 'You should kill yourself' or
'You ought to take enough poison to die' which would be 'advising or encouraging suicide' per statute.
'Encouraging or advising' ^stmts, protected as free speech, per 1stA'mt, are diff from 'assisting' stmts.

IIUC, 'assisting suicide' stmts actually cause the suicide (to contribute to? in whole or n part.?)
Hard to imagine a stmt which in and of itself would cause suicide.
Anyone?
I have not yet found the court's full opinion, but think it might enlighten us more
about what might constitute an 'assisting stmt' which would support a conviction under MN law.

And MC is charged under Mass. (assisting involuntary?) manslaughter law, so result c/b/different, imo.


Long version from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Francis_Melchert-Dinkel
"Melchert-Dinkel was convicted on March 15, 2011, in a criminal complaint filed in Rice County, Minnesota.[SUP][6][/SUP] He was charged under a rarely used state law with advising, encouraging, or assisting Kajouji and Drybrough in taking their own lives using internet correspondence.[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][35][/SUP][SUP][36][/SUP] He was ordered to stay off the internet while his criminal case is pending.[SUP][37][/SUP]
While counseling to commit suicide is illegal, laws in North America and Britain have not previously been successfully used to prosecute anyone for promoting suicide over the internet.[SUP][4][/SUP] He was found guilty of aiding a suicide under Minnesota law, which provides penalties for anyone who “intentionally advises, encourages, or assists another in taking the other’s own life", punishment can be up to 15 years in prison and a fine of up to $30,000.[SUP][7][/SUP][SUP][14][/SUP][SUP][21][/SUP][SUP][38][/SUP] He was sentenced on May 4, 2011, to 360 days in jail.[SUP][39][/SUP]
"On July 27, 2012, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. The Minnesota Supreme Court subsequently agreed to review the case. On March 19, 2014, the supreme court reversed the conviction and remanded.[SUP][40][/SUP] The high court held that the Minnesota statute under which Melchert-Dinkel had been convicted was unconstitutional in part. The court held that merely advising or encouraging suicide was speech protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and that those prohibitions were unconstitutional. It went on to hold, however, that speech which actually assisted a suicide was not protected.
"Since the trial court's had made factual findings only with respect to encouraging and advising, the supreme court reversed the conviction. It remanded, the case, however, for the lower court to determine whether Melchert-Dinkel had actually assisted the suicides within the meaning of the statute." bbm

Sorry but you are wrong.
Melchert-Dinkel was charged with aiding the suicides of Drybrough and Kajouji and convicted in 2011 by Rice County Judge Thomas Neuville, who found that he “intentionally advised and encouraged” the victims to take their lives.
Defense attorney Terry Watkins appealed, saying Melchert-Dinkel’s actions might have been immoral, but they were not illegal. Melchert-Dinkel remained free on appeal.
The justices found that*part of Minnesota’s law that bans someone from “encouraging” or “advising” suicide is unconstitutional because it encompasses speech protected under the First Amendment.
But the justices upheld part of the law*that makes it a crime to “assist” in someone’s suicide —*and said speech could be considered assisting.
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2014/1...ide-gets-jail/
So depending on her states supreme justice. She can be found guilty.

 

[al66pine]

Excerpted from boytwnmom post on Feb 28: (bbm and my re-spacing)

"These are, I believe, the current Jury Instructions on this charge, which sets out the requirements:
To prove that the defendant is guilty of involuntary manslaughter because of wanton and reckless conduct, the Commonwealth must prove the following elements beyond a
reasonable doubt: 1. The defendant caused the victim's death; 2. The defendant intended the conduct that caused the victim's death 3.The defendant's conduct was wanton and reckless.

I will now discuss each element in more detail.

The first element is that the defendant caused the death of [victim's name].A defendant's act is the cause of [the victim's] death where the act, in a natural and continuous sequence, results in death, and without which death would not have occurred.

The second element is that the defendant intended the conduct that caused the death.The Commonwealth is not required to prove that the defendant intended to cause the death.

The third element is that the defendant's conduct was wanton and reckless. Wanton and reckless conduct is conduct that creates a high degree of likelihood that substantial harm will result to another. It is conduct involving a grave risk of harm to another that a person undertakes with indifference to or disregard of the consequences of such conduct. Whether conduct is wanton and reckless depends either on what the defendant knew or how a reasonable person would have acted knowing what the defendant knew. If the defendant realized the grave risk created by his conduct, his subsequent act amounts to wanton and reckless conduct whether or not a reasonable person would have realized the risk of grave danger. Even if the defendant himself did not realize the grave risk of harm to another, the act would constitute wanton and reckless conduct if a reasonable person, knowing what the defendant knew, would have realized the act posed a risk of grave danger to another. It is not enough for the Commonwealth to prove the defendant acted negligently, that is, in a manner that a reasonably careful person would not have acted.Commonwealth must prove that the defendant's actions went beyond negligence and amounted to wanton and reckless conduct as I have defined that term.


http://www.mass.gov/courts/docs/sjc/...s-homicide.pdf".

Thx boytwnmom

 

[Jessicaleanne1992]

I'm not sure if she can be charged. Although I hope she will be. She deserves punishment. Also, if she is capable of this she is either very sick or very evil, and either way I believe she poses a threat to others. This young woman needs to be put away somewhere away from people she can potentially hurt. Who's to say she wouldn't go a step further and murder someone with her own hands?

Rest in peace Conrad. What happened to you is so unfair.

 

[liljim]

He was none of those things. So I don't understand the point of the questions.

can you answer the questions? then we can discuss it.

 

[believe09]

She was charged Jessicaleanne1992. She was arraigned after the grand jury indicted her on February 5, 2015. I hope this sees trial-fwiw I am 50/50 that this will happen. I feel in my gut that her attorney is going to approach the DA with some kind of offer that does not include pleading guilty to manslaughter but includes some kind of acknowledgement of her responsibility. I seriously doubt that her family wants this to continue to play out in the press. jmvho.

If I were Conrad's family I would certainly want answers and some kind of punishment.

 

[keeponsearching]

I think there is a lot more in the text messages that we have not seen.

 

[Snoods]

This may sound strange but I'm not particularly worried about her assaulting random strangers with her desire for them to commit suicide

I accept that you are not worried about this woman assaulting suicidal strangers, but you didn't answer my question. I indeed hope she doesn't seek other people like this young man at his most vulnerable time of need.

If you noted my previous question was worded as an extreme hypothetical. Let me try to explain it again a simpler way. Even if you don't believe this girl would do this again, humor me by answering my hypothetical question: So regarding MT encouraging her friend to commit suicide, do you believe it would be acceptable if she did it again, and again? Same exact situation for her, just a different vulnerable person on the verge of suicide. So this should be something that law shouldn't stick their noses into? Or what if it's someone's hobby, the same? Just wondering about your stance on this.

This is an interesting topic to me.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

1. No
2. Maybe
3. Maybe, but under the laws that protect minors.

 

[Cubby]

I wonder what he meant by memory issues. In the email she sent that was supposed to be quoting him, "he" keeps talking about not being able to remember things.

It's hard to say, but one reason (of many) could be an adjustment to medication. That's usually short term though, so without more information, it is hard to say.

 

[DexterMorgan]

Bottom line: Her text and own statements to others show that she assisted in his suicide especially during that brief moment of clarity. This plus other detrimental texts and possible google searches CLEARLY show intent and assistance. So yes she did assist in his suicide which is against the law.

 

[KaaBoom]

I would just give the poor confused girl a hefty suspended sentence with strict guidelines. This way she will be sure to mind her business. Also i would force her to get psychiatric help.

If I could sentence her, it would be to life in prison with no chance of parole. Suspended under the condition that she remain under constant mental health care, and that all of her electronic communications be supervised. I think she is dangerous as hell.

 

[KaaBoom]

She was charged Jessicaleanne1992. She was arraigned after the grand jury indicted her on February 5, 2015. I hope this sees trial-fwiw I am 50/50 that this will happen. I feel in my gut that her attorney is going to approach the DA with some kind of offer that does not include pleading guilty to manslaughter but includes some kind of acknowledgement of her responsibility. I seriously doubt that her family wants this to continue to play out in the press. jmvho.

If I were Conrad's family I would certainly want answers and some kind of punishment.

Thats exactly what will happen. She will plea bargain to something less, and get probation. Thats what always happens.

If she was in another country where plea bargains are not so common, she would go to trial, and most likely be convicted and sent to prison.

 

[Tawny]

If it ISN'T a crime to encourage someone to commit suicide, it really should be. Maybe this case will prompt that to happen.

This is NO DIFFERENT than a case with obvious bullying, and most people are all about prosecuting bullies. Explain to me how this is different? In both situations, one person is encouraging another to end their own life. Is it only a crime if it's done alongside taunting and harassment?