|
A Massachusetts woman convicted of involuntary manslaughter because of text messages that cajoled her 18-year-old friend to commit suicide was sentenced Thursday to serve 15 months in jail. Michelle Carter, now 20, faced a maximum 20-year prison term. Her unusual prosecution was closely watched, and it occurred in a state that has no law forbidding people from encouraging suicide. But the authorities—including a Bristol County judge—concluded that in 2014 Carter sent Conrad Roy text messages that wantonly and recklessly caused him to poison himself in a car with carbon monoxide. She was 17 years old at the time.
Judge Lawrence Moniz, who presided over the week-long, non-jury trial in June, issued the sentence in a packed courtroom in Taunton Trial Court, where Carter was tried as a juvenile. Noting that the prosecution was novel, Moniz stayed enforcement of any jail time until Carter exhausts her appeals in state court. Overall, Moniz issued a 2.5-year term but said the defendant should serve only 15 months at the Bristol County House of Correction. He suspended the remainder of the entire sentence. "This is an issue worthy of presentation to the appellate court," the judge said from the bench. "I don't know what the appeals court will do." Moniz, who said he balanced rehabilitation and punishment when formulating his sentence, called the case "a tragedy for two families." Defense attorneys maintained that the text messages were protected speech under the First Amendment and that the boy had planned to commit suicide regardless of Carter's cajoling. However, the state's top court had previously ruled against her, paving the way for the trial in which thousands of text messages and other communications between the two were admitted as evidence. "You're finally going to be happy in heaven," one text read. Another said, "All you have to do is turn on the generator and you will be free and happy." The state's top court last year upheld the indictment for involuntary manslaughter on "the basis of words alone" and that Carter was "virtually present" at Roy's suicide. The boy, who had been battling depression and had attempted suicide in 2012, was found dead in a parking lot about an hour's drive south of Boston. Carter was also on the phone with Roy while he was killing himself. She urged him to get back in the vehicle when he hesitated, according to testimony. Prosecutors sought a prison term of between seven and 12 years. Prosecutor Maryclare Flynn said Carter's "well thought out campaign" was for her "own personal gain and quest for attention." Defense attorney Joe Cataldo said Carter had an eating disorder and was on antidepressants. He argued for probation and no jail time. "She was going through some significant mental health issues herself," he told the judge during the hearing. Involuntary manslaughter in Massachusetts amounts to causing a death by behavior that has a likelihood of causing harm. The boy's father, also named Conrad Roy, told the court during the sentencing hearing that his son "was his best friend." "How could Michelle Carter behave so viciously and encourage my son to end his life?" he asked from the witness stand as he tried to choke back tears. Carter's father, David, urged for leniency and no jail time. "She will forever live with what she has done and I know will be a better person because of it," he wrote in a letter to the judge. "I ask of you to invoke leniency in your decision-making process for my loving child Michelle." |
Poster Comment:
I'm sure a few of you have been waiting to see when I would post The Followup. I'm such a sucker for closure.
#1: sneakypete To: Tooconservative (#0)
She would have been happier if she got on jail time out of contributing to a suicide because she would have then been able to celebrate the power she had over the life of someone else.
Chances are she will try to do it again in the future,but will be more careful the next time.
I see her active prison sentence as a GOOD thing because if she had gotten off with a slap on the wrist,other narcissists would have been encouraged to go for their own tv camera fact time,and all the glory from newspaper stories and photos,and people talking about them. They would have been virtually rolling in the self-love all that attention would have gotten them,
sneakypete posted on 2017-08-06 12:14:47 Reply Private Reply
#2: Tooconservative To: sneakypete (#1)
We'll still have more cases of this type, no matter what.
The case is on appeal and she is free pending the final verdict. That means the judge is pretty uncertain that she will be found guilty on appeal.
Keep in mind: there is no law in Massachusetts forbidding you to encourage someone to commit suicide.
Do you really want to prosecute people every time someone says, "Oh, just kill yourself already!"?
Anyway, we still haven't reached closure in the case since there will be at least one more story on the appeals court verdict. Then possibly two more appeals after that, depending on how the current appeal goes.
Tooconservative posted on 2017-08-06 12:18:03 Reply Private Reply
#3: misterwhite To: Tooconservative (#0)
Horrible ruling by the judge. I can see this extending to bullying, hate speech, and even harassment.
If I posted ESAD and you did, am I going to prison, too?
misterwhite posted on 2017-08-06 12:18:07 Reply Private Reply
#4: Tooconservative To: misterwhite (#3)
Yep, haul 'em all off to the FEMA death camp in Hardin, Montana.
Well, okay, I guess not.
Anyway, there are still a few appeals left after this, no matter what. And she still isn't in jail yet which tells you how uncertain that judge is about his verdict. In the end, he has no law under which to sentence her. And that may be her get-out-of-jail-free card.
Tooconservative posted on 2017-08-06 12:20:26 Reply Private Reply
#5: sneakypete To: Tooconservative (#2)
No,but I would like to see people in a position to influence someone with emotional problems prosecuted if they took an active role in a suicide by encouraging it. At a minimum she was an accomplice.
sneakypete posted on 2017-08-06 12:20:54 Reply Private Reply
#6: sneakypete To: misterwhite (#3)
Was everybody in the crowd his girlfriend?
sneakypete posted on 2017-08-06 12:22:01 Reply Private Reply
#7: misterwhite To: Tooconservative (#0)
misterwhite posted on 2017-08-06 12:22:05 Reply Private Reply
#8: sneakypete To: misterwhite (#7)
Those eyebrows would scare me off. I see them as a sign there is something seriously off-balance about her.
sneakypete posted on 2017-08-06 12:23:25 Reply Private Reply
#9: Tooconservative To: sneakypete (#6)
She was not his girlfriend.
They met a few years earlier while both were on vacation in Florida. They had hardly any contact after that other than texting and online stuff. I'm not sure she ever saw him in person again after the Florida meeting.
Tooconservative posted on 2017-08-06 12:23:40 Reply Private Reply
#10: sneakypete To: Tooconservative (#9)
Ok,I didn't know that. I had heard her identified as being his girlfriend.
Yes,that does make a difference.
sneakypete posted on 2017-08-06 12:24:55 Reply Private Reply
#11: Tooconservative To: misterwhite, sneakypete (#7)
So now we've advanced from debating justice and the law and reached the I'd-fuck-that portion of our program...
‹/sigh›
Tooconservative posted on 2017-08-06 12:25:18 Reply Private Reply
#12: Tooconservative To: sneakypete (#10)
Well, she did talk to him on the phone the night he killed himself and did send some do-it-already texts to him.
Tooconservative posted on 2017-08-06 12:28:02 Reply Private Reply
#13: misterwhite To: Tooconservative (#4)
They keep UFO's there, right? Along with 2 million Americans?
"In the end, he has no law under which to sentence her."
Exactly. Which is why I mentioned the other possibilities. Dangerous precedent, especially if the federal governent decides it's a good idea.
misterwhite posted on 2017-08-06 12:28:42 Reply Private Reply
#14: misterwhite To: Tooconservative (#11)
Sorry ... I just thought ... you know ...
misterwhite posted on 2017-08-06 12:30:38 Reply Private Reply
#15: Tooconservative To: misterwhite (#13)
I've been waiting for some idiot congresscritter to file a bill named "Conrad's Law".
You recall my thread yesterday about why these laws named after some dead kid are such a bad policy.
Tooconservative posted on 2017-08-06 12:31:24 Reply Private Reply
#16: Tooconservative To: misterwhite (#14)
That's all right. Just grab the lotion and kleenex but be back here in 10 minutes, okay?
Tooconservative posted on 2017-08-06 12:32:18 Reply Private Reply
#17: misterwhite To: Tooconservative (#15)
Well, this case hardly represents a trend sweeping America.
Bullying, on the other hand, does. Isn't Melania working on that? When it happens, I predict they'll call it "Melania's Law"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Megan_Meier
misterwhite posted on 2017-08-06 12:41:38 Reply Private Reply
#18: Tooconservative To: misterwhite, sneakypete (#17)
Apparently pete isn't as fast. ; )
Melania won by settling. Got a few million and an apology, I think.
Tooconservative posted on 2017-08-06 12:55:31 Reply Private Reply
#19: rlk To: Tooconservative (#0)
Why blame her if he was stupid enough to take her advice?
rlk posted on 2017-08-06 17:20:33 Reply Private Reply
#20: Tooconservative To: rlk (#19)
She was convicted under no real law at all IMO. There was no 'there' there. And that's why the judge didn't lock her up until her appeal(s) were heard in higher courts. That alone tells you that he had no confidence that his verdict and sentence would be upheld on appeal.
Tooconservative posted on 2017-08-06 17:47:46 Reply Private Reply
#21: sneakypete To: rlk (#19)
Robert,you are a shrink and don't understand the difference between being stupid and being mentally unbalanced?
sneakypete posted on 2017-08-06 18:10:28 Reply Private Reply
#22: sneakypete To: Tooconservative (#20)
Or maybe it tells you he has complete confidence his sentence will be upheld,so he isn't worried about an appeal.
sneakypete posted on 2017-08-06 18:11:53 Reply Private Reply
#23: Tooconservative To: sneakypete (#22)
Except to contrarian dumbasses.
Tooconservative posted on 2017-08-06 18:20:54 Reply Private Reply
#24: rlk To: sneakypete (#21)
The girl in quesion was not a shrink. Does this ruling mean we must all call in a panel of headshrinkers to evaluate someone before saying something unpleasant to somebody? That's where this ruling is taking us.
rlk posted on 2017-08-06 19:06:31 Reply Private Reply
#25: sneakypete To: Tooconservative (#23)
Don't worry about it. The rest of us will continue to tolerate you,anyway.
sneakypete posted on 2017-08-06 19:23:19 Reply Private Reply
#26: sneakypete To: rlk (#24)
I hadn't considered that,but I am positive you are right. The shrink lobby group will spot that as another source of perpetual income,and be all over it.
sneakypete posted on 2017-08-06 19:24:29 Reply Private Reply
#27: Tooconservative To: rlk, sneakypete (#24)
She was never present in person at the suicide. She talked to him on the phone briefly and sent some text messages.
If she had been present, I could see where they might get her on some kind of good Samaritan law, where you are obligated to try to save the live of a person in distress or bent on self-harm and irresponsible.
They convicted her of being present virtually through a cell phone. And that should disturb anyone.
Tooconservative posted on 2017-08-06 20:17:22 Reply Private Reply
#28: misterwhite To: Tooconservative (#27)
Her presence would disturb me.
misterwhite posted on 2017-08-06 20:30:58 Reply Private Reply
#29: rlk To: sneakypete (#26)
Not only that, but the lawyers will be coaching their clients on feining emotional destress and will make milions off it. There will be a erosion of law and a new class of victimhood to be addressed.
rlk posted on 2017-08-06 22:00:03 Reply Private Reply
#30: Tooconservative To: misterwhite (#28)
She does give off that Angel of Death vibe.
Tooconservative posted on 2017-08-06 22:48:46 Reply Private Reply
#31: misterwhite To: Tooconservative (#30)
No. Her presence would disturb me ... in a good way.
misterwhite posted on 2017-08-07 10:11:45 Reply Private Reply
#32: sneakypete To: Tooconservative (#27)
You misunderstand the Good Samaritan Law. It exists so that the typical citizen on a scene where someone is seriously injured can try to help that person survive without worrying about being sued for nonsense like "practicing medicine without a license"
No law can compel anyone to risk their lives or livelihood to save someone else.
sneakypete posted on 2017-08-07 10:15:12 Reply Private Reply
#33: sneakypete To: rlk (#29)
Unfortunately,that is the world we live in today.
sneakypete posted on 2017-08-07 10:16:26 Reply Private Reply
#34: misterwhite To: Tooconservative (#18)
A man on a mission. Like Ben Stiller in There's Something About Mary.
misterwhite posted on 2017-08-07 10:42:55 Reply Private Reply
#35: Tooconservative To: misterwhite (#34)
You must be quite experienced.
Tooconservative posted on 2017-08-07 11:41:31 Reply Private Reply
#36: misterwhite To: Tooconservative (#35)
misterwhite posted on 2017-08-07 13:14:03 Reply Private Reply