Adults dupe teen into MySpace-assisted suicide

[swingdoc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How is anybody ever responsible for the actions of someone else (not speaking legally)?

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you compare off-handed trolling of a bum to premeditated harassment of a child?

[/ QUOTE ]
The offense may be more despicable, but imo fundamentally nobody is ever responsible for the actions of another. You can't control what other people do, just like nobody can control what you do. Your actions are your own. It's pretty easy to shirk off that responsibility by blaming circumstance or environment or outside forces, but everybody's actions are still their own responsibility and nobody else's.

[/ QUOTE ]

Something to consider here is that I think it's pretty well known that children who are raped at a young age are mentally affected by it and their relationships will suffer perpetually unless they receive a LOT of counseling treatment.

I think something like this argues against what you're saying. While, in theory, they control their own actions, it is a pretty universal thing for them to all have certain problems thereafter in their life (e.g., sexual addiction).

So I don't think your statement is quite as universal as you're trying to imply.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, but I believe GoT's point is that the only way to make sense of the law is to treat everyone as if he/she was responsible for his/her actions entirely. Obviously we're all products of our environments/genetic makeups. Given infinite knowledge you could probably have a pretty good idea how/why I do things, be able to predict them/understand them causally... but that doesn't absolve me of responsibility, you know? Whether or not it's the case that we are caused by certain environmental factors in much of our action/decision making (which I agree with you - we almost certainly ARE), if the law were to try and reflect this then it would be a hopeless sea of chain-of-causality-pass-the-buck

so we're left with: we're all physical creatures, probably just part of a large mechanistic process and hence not "responsible" for any of our actions really

and

the only sensible way to legislate is as if we were responsible for all of our actions

imo at least

[/ QUOTE ]

No. There are obviously very specific circumstances that would absolve you of your actions as you most definitely can be overwhelmingly compelled by force, etc. If I hold a gun to your head and insist that you punch you mom in the face or I'll kill you both, you are no longer responsible for that action. I know that's extreme, but culpability for actions certainly is a continuum from that situation to onen where I act in a vacuum and the action is completely my own.

Miajag had a good post earlier that deals with this (sort of)

[ QUOTE ]
In Maryland, at least, appellate courts have ruled that school systems can be held liable for wrongful death for failing to prevent a student's suicide, as well as committing actions that create an "irresistible impulse" to commit suicide, so it would appear you could almost certainly sue someone (possibly successfully) for actively contributing to a suicide in this manner.

[/ QUOTE ] Bold is mine.

[MikeyPatriot]

[ QUOTE ]
The mindset that other people should, or even CAN, be held morally responsible for my own actions is self-justifying cop-out BS.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then the family should still be held responsible for the harassment and fraud of a 13 year old child.

[swingdoc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I disagree. If I take someone who I know is emotionally unstable and I put them in a situation to purposely torment and hurt them, and not just by calling them poor or ugly mind you, I take weeks and build up their trust. I make them fall for me, and become an integral part of their emotional well being, by building them up, making them rely on me to feel good about their self, giving them value as a person and then I drastically snatch that away in the worst possible way, and completely humiliate and degrade them, as an adult I realize there is going to be a reaction to that. it might not have been the one I thought it was going to be, but there sure is [censored] is going to be one, and you cant predict what its going to be from someone unstable, but yes I am responsible for the outcome.

This isnt teasing someone at lunch, this isnt making fun of some homeless guy. This is a total mindfuck that took place over an extended period of time. Comparing these two situations shows a complete lack of understanding about what took place here.

[/ QUOTE ]
All you're saying here is that the action of teasing them is more despicable, which I fully agree with. I completely disagree with your assumption that PersonA can or should be held responsible for what PersonB chooses to do with their life. Everybody is affected by others; that's unavoidable and I'd hate to think what life would be life if that wasn't the case. But thankfully we all have the freedom to make our own choices. We don't often have control of our circumstance, but our voluntary actions are just that. The mindset that other people should, or even CAN, be held morally responsible for my own actions is self-justifying cop-out BS.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok, different scenario, but im curious as to what you think about it.

I start a cult, I get some weak minded emotionally troubled people with an intense desire to be accepted and to follow. I then spend several months mindfucking and brainwashing them until they think I am the grand exalted poohbah supreme God of the universe. Then I tell them to start going out and killing people. Since their actions are thier own, I am no way responsible for the deaths of the people they chose to kill, since they obviously could have chosen not to do it. So morally in your opinion I am guilt free? legally as well?

[/ QUOTE ]
This is kinda different, isn't it? First, you are prompting the minions under your mind [censored] to commit murder. You're not just mind [censored] them and letting whatever happens, happens. Secondly, you're dealing with (I assume) adults. Thirdly you would obviously be legally guilty of conspiracy to commit murder. Your minions would be guilty of murder, conspiracy to commit murder and probably various other charges.

[orange]

jesus, wtf is wrong with people...

[GuyOnTilt]

[ QUOTE ]

ok, different scenario, but im curious as to what you think about it.

I start a cult, I get some weak minded emotionally troubled people with an intense desire to be accepted and to follow. I then spend several months mindfucking and brainwashing them until they think I am the grand exalted poohbah supreme God of the universe. Then I tell them to start going out and killing people. Since their actions are thier own, I am no way responsible for the deaths of the people they chose to kill, since they obviously could have chosen not to do it. So morally in your opinion I am guilt free? legally as well?

[/ QUOTE ]
Legally, I don't know or care really.

Morally, trying to convince someone to kill another is a horrible thing to do. If someone tried to brainwash me that way that's something they're morally responsible for. But I'd argue that whether it's successful or not has no bearing on whether or not it's moral or immoral, and that my actions for the rest of my life post-brainwashing (attempt or success) are still my own choice and responsibility. People try to influence others all the time, and often are successful. But trying to justify my actions to myself or others with "but they told me to" is an incomplete and immature mindset imo.

In your example, the cult leader is responsible for brainwashing people to do kill, which most would deem wrong. But I'm of the opinion that the act of killing of innocents is the responsibility of the killers themselves.

[skunkworks]

I'm kind of boggled as to how some of you could not understand how the actions of a 14-year-old girl could not be manipulated into doing something harmful and make the manipulator liable for that girl's actions. The real argument is how much manipulation (and torment) could cause liability.

DC Sniper was obv. liable for having his protege squeeze the trigger, but that's an extreme example. Without knowing the content of the MySpace exchanges, it's hard for us to armchair quarterback this and say that the adults are legally liable.

[Alobar]

swing,

I wasnt comparing the cult situation to the myspace one. I was just curious how GOT would view that situation given his philosophy

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm kind of boggled as to how some of you could not understand how the actions of a 14-year-old girl could not be manipulated into doing something harmful and make the manipulator liable for that girl's actions. The real argument is how much manipulation (and torment) could cause liability.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure that the debate is whether or not the possibility for legal liability exists, but whether it should exist and what the parameters are for invoking it. That seems like a more interesting discussion, anyway.

[Pyromaniac]

This reminds me of that well-known case in Texas a while back - two girls are cheerleaders and are rivals. Mother of one girl hires hitman to off the other girl.

The parents in this case don't seem to be doing much as "parents" -- seems like the mother is either doing the living-vicariously-through-daughter thing, or doing the i'm-not-yr-mom-i'm-yr-best-girl-friend thing. or both. she's in her 30s or 40s or whatever but isn't really that much more advanced in mental/emotional/ethical age than her daughter.

...on a side note, I'm curious if there's anything in pop culture -- a movie, a book, a TV series episode -- that served as a template for this. if these adults thought this was an appropriate thing to do, i'm sort of thinking they're just not real bright, generally. not that there *had* to be a template, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were (thinking post-columbine here).

[entertainme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's worth noting that this girl's parents are partly at fault for letting her get so fat. Bad parenting led to a very unhappy child.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not the parents fault shes fat, its corporations like McDonalds who are to blame for that. <font color="white">im kidding </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

BS. Her parents have complete control over her diet. Don't try to absolve them of doing a good job of raising their child. Plenty of parents do it just fine. I know if I ever have children they won't be getting fat and "corporations" aren't going to somehow make it happen behind my back.

[/ QUOTE ]

From the article:

[ QUOTE ]
She was heavy and for years had tried to lose weight. She had attention deficit disorder and battled depression. Back in third grade she had talked about suicide, Tina says, and ever since had seen a therapist.

But things were going exceptionally well. She had shed 20 pounds, getting down to 175. She was 5 foot 5½ inches tall.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't paint a picture of them shoving Big Macs down her throat. Food issues often come with depression. (It can be a form of self medication.)

You can lead. You can only have healthy snacks at home. You can encourage. You can't control even your own children 100%.