Should cyber bullying/harassment that leads to suicide by the victim be charged as murder or manslaughter?
My lawyer friend says that they aren't providing the means for them to kill themselves, so it is not manslaughter.
Yes, its horrible what some kids have to endure
Are you asking which one? Or whether people should just be charged?
Just be charged
There needs to be something to make these responsible people pay. But charging for murder or manslaughter is a bit much.
I personally don't see why cyberbullying is a problem, but it is. The harasses should be charged with something, but maybe not as extreme as murder.
Manslaughter because of intent. Bullies are often careless not considering the consequences to their actions in the same way a reckless driver does.
Though this is if it is to be considered either at all. I consider the person who committed suicide to be the murderer personally. Many who kill have a reason to do it but it is never a good enough reason and the loss of a life is always a tragedy.
Hmmm... That is going to be a tough precedent. How about the political prisoner who elects suicide?
If evidence is apparent...
It just happened. Two dopes did it to a 12 yr old that committed suicide. They were arrested and charged.
That's what inspired the question that inspired this question.
Duh! I thought so. The younger was released to her parents the other is in juvie. The parents are bad people too. What a shame.
Hmm I don't know if you could pull of a manslaughter charge, but there should be some sort of charges. I like this question by the way! Made me think.
Do I think the perps should be charged with murder, no. Although IMO they shouldn't be let off scot free as they obviously played a large role in encouraging/promoting the victim to end their life.
So some charge then. That sure beats letting them go free
Yeah... The whole if you don't like someone's response then turn off the computer logic doesn't work well with teenagers. Heck, I'm an adult and I have to remind myself to stay calm and move on after being attacked online.
I made an analogy about the "turn off idea" below
If you cant handle what a random person says about you on the internet. Theres something you can do that you cant in the real world. Turn It Off
It isn't just the Internet and there are still issues. It's becoming the equivalent if if my dad who grew up in the 70s was told "when you get home from school you're locked in your bedroom until you leave for school, because if you try to leave wild tigers will eat ou"
I don't agree, self confidence doesn't stop tigers, believe me on that, long story
It's a metaphor I could've said any animal that's considered vicious, but I've been using tigers for a while
IMO, not an accurate one, I can handle a tiger calling me names, not too find of the gnashing claws though
I was meaning in the sense where if he went outside the tigers would maul up him and eat him.
Eh, again to me, huge differences, sad for the people that don't see the difference, and hope they seek help to ensure they can
There is a huge difference between someone random saying a stupid comment to you and someone stalking you via the Internet because they truly want you to kill yourself. If someone has gone to those lengths to hurt someone like that and it is proven
there should be a consequence.
I mean a 14 year old was just bragging on her Facebook about how she got a 12 year old to kill herself and it was funny to her. If you don't think there is ANY problem with that, than you probably have a similar problem
You say there is a huge difference, where is the line? To me, personal attacks are uncalled for, and people shouldn't use them. The 14 year old is evil, but I'm saying it might be better served to strengthen the 12 year old to handle it.
So a 12 year old kills herself cause a 14 year old said something? Did she not get help from anyone, it bothered her that much? Its mostly the parents faults. A 12 year old on facebook with the parents not knowing whats going on with her life?
And once again if you cant take whats going on, on the internet. Turn It Off. Its not that hard. Thats the dumbest way a person will commit suicide
Again why blame te victim? Why should there social life be effectively ruined because people harassed them? Of this was any other from your blame the perp not the victim. So why blame the victim now?
JustBob, I don't know where the line is but I don't think girls like the girls in Florida and all they did should just get off on nothing. I see your point, and personal responsibility comes into play somewhere. Like I said I know there's a line but
I really have no idea where to place it.
Should it at least lead to some sort of charge or do they just go off scot free?
You would be punishing for the outcome, not the act itself, the solution would be to eliminate all unkind words over the internet.
So basically your solution is do nothing and let the harassers sin, because instead of dining SOMETHING, we just tell the victim it's their fault? I'm sorry if I'm emotional about this, but I've seen this. It's not something we can just not deal with
They need counseling. If someone is contemplating suicide, the problem is in them, and you want to change their environment, that is enabling. How can I let comments roll off of me, while others are devastated from the same comments?
Counseling I suppose could be a solution, although they shouldn't just be able to go for x times and then say "oh im cured" and then do it again. But the old quip of sticks and stones isn't accurate. Physical wounds heal. Emotional ones usually need some sort of help to heal.
Why are we blaming the victim? Why is it the victim who is being blamed for the actions if the perpetrator. If this was another crime, you wouldn't. So why now?
Counsel the one saying bad things is not what I had in mind. And why doesn't sticks and stones work? That is advise for the victim. Why not counsel the abused to gain self confidence so this doesn't effect them?
I misread what you were saying at first, yes the victim should get counseling, but if someone is willing to take their own life because of the harassment they receive, which often continues at school, even if they do turn off devices, not doing something is morally and legally repugnant
Some kid gets harassed at school, kid writes on FB "I'm bored" someone he doesn't really know replies "you're a lazy bastard." It's the kids crescendo, the final punch in his ticket out of this world, who is to blame?
The final straw kid, or everyone that ever said unkind words to this poor kid?
From a legal perspective likely the ones who caused most of the harm, so not this random person. I wish Bethany would comment her perspective as a lawyer would be an interesting one,
Hell yea, I absolutely adore Bethany. So, your solution, pull out the bean counters, and start the tallies for bad words thrown.
Im not saying it would be easy or simple to draft a law, that's why many states don't, but to ignore the issue isn't anything but W R O N G
That should be win not sin
Who is saying ignore the issue? Thinking that making the world a nicer place is possible or helpful is a waste of time. Focus on making kids better equipped to handle the tough cruel world is where I feel is a better use of resources.
Here is the poll that inspired this w.showofhands.mobi/polls/detail/?i=91598
There are a lot of factors to take into consideration when dealing with a situation like that. I think a murder charge would be very extreme but some sort of felony harrassment might be more fitting.
But something at least. As I said below some of the things I've been hearing make me sick
I agree, some kind of charge but not manslaughter
Maybe not exactly that but accesory to murder
Bout definelpntly something? I've seen things where people are blaming the victim for "being too weak" or "the mother is just looking for a scapegoat" it's honestly sickening that people are blaming the victim and not the harassers
Someone called me an idiot on this app, if I killed myself for it, should they go to prison? What is the line between just saying something that isn't kind and bullying?
I've never heard of a one time instance, cyber bullying is really a misnomer, cyber bullying for all intents and purposes is really harassment through the web, social media, phones et al. What laws do exist usually require persistence and growing pat tempts not a one off.
Unlike, murder, assault, theft, etc. cyber bullying relies solely on the sensitivity of the victim, an I know that's a harsh thing to say, but in the example above it only took one time, in your definition, how many times would it have to take?
This is where it gets tricky in all honesty, I think if a law put a set number (like say 15 times) that wouldn't work, a more blanket definition (a persistent, continuous, and purposefully harmful attempt at harassing another through..) and then name whatever sites forms etc would be more effective. Would you at least support a lesser charge?
No, how can we charge for a crime we can't even define? And If the same person said bad things to me on here, do I now have a case? Should we all hold our tongues? Elimination of free speech to protect those that are allergic to it is the solution?
Bob, the same crime can have different definitions in different states. Free speech should be protected, but there ARE limits. You can't yell "Fire!" In a crowded theater, and when your actions, not even just words, it's getting to the point where virtually anything is seen as fair game, cause someone to committ suicide, some sort of charge is needed.
Maybe not murder or manslaughter, but punishing the victim after death for what the harassers did is morally repugnant in my book, and frankly is telling kids "you can cyber harass. If they hurt themselves, that's them being soft, not you being a horrible ass."
Fire in a crowded theater has a foreseeable reaction not like people have different tolerances for that. people commit suicide for a myriad of reasons, all of which are sad, but seldom in control of others. Do we cater to lowest common denominator?
Bob, people can be charged for causing someone to commit suicide if I recall correctly, what we do now is the lowest common denominator, we sacrifice our moral compass as a nation to let the bastards win by nit doing something, yes if someone is being cyber harassed they should talk to someone and get help, but that's no excuse for letting the perpetrators go free
Because the alternative is taking away free speech, or having some sort of dictator choose what is acceptable name calling and what is not
I don't call anyone idiot or fat or lazy or ugly. My choice, I don't like doing it, do I want to take away other people's ability to say it? Hell to the no. But, If we allow them to say it, how the hell can we punish when something goes wrong for it
Inspired by and Praetorianus' question last night, follow him. Great interesting questions.