I dont think Michelle Carter will get any real punishment.

[J.Wilkins]

In your example probably not because
1st It sounds like sarcasm
2nd your ex is not mentally ill
3rd you didn't explicitly send her info on how to do it
4th She never had second thoughts that you then shot down and said just do it.

*She researched and suggested means to him how to do it that is far beyond just saying something that got her into trouble.

We can go back and forth all night, there is a obvious line that was crossed jury and judge agreed. I'm sure there will be an appeal we'll see where it settles.

1. our previous discussion makes it impossible to determine if it is sarcasm and it isn't, she's been nagging me and I literally just told her to go shoot herself, do I need to give her instructions on how to use a shotgun?
2. Everyone who wants to off themselves are per definition mentally ill by todays standards, depression is a mental illness according to expert witnesses.
3. So i need to tell her how to use the shotgun, as in how to load the shells and how to cock it for it to count?
4. But she did, and I told her to do it.

We are now having a discussion regarading the arbitrary lines and at this point I'm fairly sure I could stretch it and goad you into a situation where you'd have admitted that the female found guilty would not be considered guilty but I'm not going to do so because ... well it's too much work.

I think you are an honest human being and what's more I think you are approaching this with an open mind BUT I also think that you have determined that she is guilty and you are will thereby not use your own judgement on determining whether any other case is but use her case, or rather what you decide is appropriate to take away from that case to determine guilt.

That is the problem I'm getting at, you as a layman do not have the information required to make such a call and yet, you and others like you will be instructed and let loose on cases like these where you have to go by precedent.

That can mean that for lesser men than you, a sarcastic comment is enough of an instruction to find them guilty.

That is the precedent set, it's up to the jurors to determine and my argument is that this is a dangerous precedent to set.

If I kill myself, it'll be my own undoing.

 

[Sunburn74]

She ordered him to get back into the car for the CO poisoning.
Flip side what if a husband did that do his wife?

In my opinion she didn't order him to do anything.
She's not his boss or a mafia lord he owes money to. She's wasn't holding a knife to his head or pointing a gun at his child. People make it sound like she coerced him into doing this and she didn't.
All the time, people convince each other to make stupid and irrational decisions. That is not a crime imo. There was a story I remember maybe a year or two ago when on the 4th of july friends convinced a young drunk man to put a firework on his head and launch it and he did, blowing his head off his shoulders. That is not a crime!

The line is drawn when you start emailing her instructions of how to shoot herself in the face, provide her info where she can buy the shotgun and ammo with the explicit-ed purpose to shoot herself in the face and then when she messages you saying I have second thoughts about shooting myself in the face you need to reply shoot yourself in the face we'll all be much happier (or something similar)

Edit: it also needs to be obvious to any ordinary person that your GF has an obvious mental disorder too.

I'm reminded of a book in the 19th century (I don't remember the name but it was a russian author) that was banned briefly because it is believed to have triggered a rash of suicides (ie you were on the edge, you get the book and read it and it pushes you over the edge). There are books right now that describe the best way to painlessly kill yourself based on what you have in your house and how you want to be found.
Currently there is some controversy and concern that netflix's reproduction of the book 13 reasons and the book itself is triggering a rash of suicides today. Should those authors and companies be held liable for manslaughter, criminal or civil negligence and wrongful death? It just really opens a huge can of worms.

And none of this is saying what she did was morally or ethically right. There is total agreement that her actions were immoral, cowardly, dastardly, and worth reprimanding severely. But to seek criminal or civil penalty I just think really sets precedents we don't want to set as a country. I personally hope she appeals this ruling all the way to the supreme court because this to me is a rather important case that sets the boundary of personal liability in terms of free speech.

 

[interchange]

I find it unlikely that criminalizing her behavior will prevent future actions for her or deter significantly similar behavior in others, but these are complicated projections and how could they be proven? But I think the more compelling argument is whether her prosecution helps the public believe justice was served. I'm uneasy over this mostly because of her age, but I do agree with the verdict.

Mostly, though, from a human perspective this is incredibly messed up, and it scares me to imagine what function her actions served. Exploiting your relationship with another to the point of their suicide is disgusting.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I find it unlikely that criminalizing her behavior will prevent future actions for her or deter significantly similar behavior in others, but these are complicated projections and how could they be proven? But I think the more compelling argument is whether her prosecution helps the public believe justice was served. I'm uneasy over this mostly because of her age, but I do agree with the verdict.

Mostly, though, from a human perspective this is incredibly messed up, and it scares me to imagine what function her actions served. Exploiting your relationship with another to the point of their suicide is disgusting.

The function serves her narcissistic psychopathic behavior.