Lori Drew Cyber-Bullying Trial Begins 317
An anonymous reader writes "The cyber-bullying trial of Lori Drew opened yesterday. She was indicted for conspiring to access and accessing MySpace illegally in order to 'further a tortious act, namely, intentional infliction of emotional distress' (PDF of the indictment). The BBC has background on the case, the NYTimes covers the opening statements, and Wired has today's testimony."
Overreaching (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Overreaching (Score:5, Insightful)
I still don't know whether or not to think of this as an immature prank gone terribly, terribly wrong, or a real attempt to prey on a weak girl's vulnerable mental state.
It's not both? This woman is a grade-A sociopath, regardless of whether or not she suspected her victim would be so gravely affected as to commit suicide. She needs to be institutionalized regardless of the outcome of her actions, it's just unfortunate that these kind of people are only brought to light when something tragic happens.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Overreaching (Score:4, Insightful)
That opens a terrible door though. Do you really want the government with the power to declare an individual randomly "incapble of telling right from wrong" (maybe you voted for the wrong political party and now fit this criteria) and then institutionalized for it? Remember: it's for your own good.
Truthfully, I think it's clear that what this woman did was wrong, and she SHOULD be punished, but we need to find a non-biased, and clear cut way that doesn't involve personal judgements to explicitly DEFINE what exactly she did wrong, and to what level people should be punished for it.
Re:Overreaching (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it was wrong too, but if there is no clear cut law on the books to prosecute her with, then they should have to deal with that fact, and let her go.
They can not be enabled to stretch any law they like to try to catch someone doing something bad. That opens up a WHOLE new can of worms that we really don't want opened.
Re: (Score:2)
That opens a terrible door though. Do you really want the government with the power to declare an individual randomly "incapble of telling right from wrong" (maybe you voted for the wrong political party and now fit this criteria) and then institutionalized for it? Remember: it's for your own good.
Erm, they already have that ability, yes? That's practically the definition of legally insane [lectlaw.com].
Re: (Score:2)
The government already has that power, though it's usually used in fairly clear cases. A person can be adjudicated to be a danger to himself or others, and lose access to firearms. In many states, a person can be adjudicated legally insane due to an inability to perceive right from wrong, and lose their right to vote. This usually happens in criminal cases, so the result would be the same either way, but it doesn't always happen that way.
The defendant is certainly someone that I find a bit scary. She se
Re:Overreaching (Score:4, Insightful)
I have been reading about this case for some time. So far the known points are Lori Drew may have been aware that her assistant (Grills) and daughter were putting together a fake MySpace account to "befriend" one Megan Meier. The assistant and daughter exchanged messaged with the Meir girl pretending to be a boy from Florida who was interested in her. After something upset the real life relationship with the Drew daughter and the Meier girl, the daughter and Grills started using the fake MySpace account to send mean-spirited messages to Megan. Culminating in Grills sending a message telling Megan the world would be better off without her.
You may not have noticed, but the only involvement ever mentioned in connection with Lori Drew is that she may have been aware the account was created. She did not herself create the account. She did not herself send messages to Megan Meier. She did not tell Meier to kill herself.
How does this qualify as "Grade-A Sociopath"? I don't see that anything she did qualifies as wrong, let alone immoral, or illegal.
But Dammit! we need vengeance, and we already gave immunity to Grills if she agreed to testify, so...
Re:Overreaching (Score:5, Informative)
You may not have noticed, but the only involvement ever mentioned in connection with Lori Drew is that she may have been aware the account was created. She did not herself create the account. She did not herself send messages to Megan Meier. She did not tell Meier to kill herself.
From Wired [wired.com]:
That's a little different than saying "she may have been aware the account was created". Also,
I'd be willing to downgrade her from "primary actor" to "willing participant", but I don't think you can say she was only partially involved.
Re:Overreaching (Score:5, Insightful)
If we institutionalised sociopaths then a large number of corporations would be looking for new C?Os and a large number of political posts would be open.
Not, actually, a bad thing, now I come to think of it...
Re:Overreaching (Score:4, Interesting)
You jest, but leadership is what sociopaths are for.
A sociopath (aka psychopath) lacks any empathy, and is only vaguely aware of long-term consequences. They are also very highly skilled at manipulation. This makes them ideal leaders in the face of an ill-willed adversary. Unfortunately, they hurt everyone they come in contact with, so outside of a leadership job they are loathsome. I have one in the office next door to mine, and the world would be a better place if she were to depart it.
The rate at which mother nature presents us with sociopaths -- from 1% to 5%, it's hard to tell -- indicates the historical size of our tribes, assuming each tribe needs one sociopathic leader. If the birth rate of sociopaths is 2%, then our average tribe size throughout our history is 50.
Re: (Score:2)
Your estimate presumes that sociopaths do not target each other ("honour among thieves"). I somewhat doubt the likelihood of that.
Re:Overreaching (Score:5, Funny)
If she reads this and then kills herself you're going to jail, bucko.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This woman is a grade-A sociopath, regardless of whether or not she suspected her victim would be so gravely affected as to commit suicide. She needs to be institutionalized regardless of the outcome of her actions, it's just unfortunate that these kind of people are only brought to light when something tragic happens.
It is a good thing we have such wonderful armchair psychiatrists who can spot who should and shouldn't be locked up based on no scientific or legal qualifications.
What the woman did happens quite a bit every day. The outcome of this was terrible, but locking someone up for an outcome that happened to which she had almost no control over is ridiculous.
If someone commits suicide and writes a note saying it was because they lost their job, should we arrest the person who fired them? Of course not.
It is reactio
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. "Causing emotional harm" is not a crime. Your posts sound like the rage-venting of somebody who was bullied in school and wants everybody who ever dared hurt somebody else's feelings "punished" by Big Daddy Government.
I was bullied in school too. I got the fuck over it and moved on. You should try it sometime.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a difference between telling someone they're an asshole and hitting them with a hammer.
Shall we do a comparison?
You're an asshole. I'll leave you to arrange the second part yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a difference between randomly insulting a random stranger online and deliberately trying to cause emotional harm to a minor that you know is suffering from depression.
/Mikael
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Or can you [straightdope.com]?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If someone does something that is 'wrong' you make a law, you don't trample there rights and use incorrect laws.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not catchy enough (Score:5, Funny)
Its a nice attempt, but it simply can't compete with the likes of The Exorcism of Emily Rose, or The Adventures of Buckaroo Bonzai Across the 8th Dimension. Or even The Adventures of Baron Munchausen for that matter.
Charged with the right crime? (Score:5, Insightful)
What Lori Drew did was reprehensible and possibly illegal, but I get the feeling that she's being charged with the wrong crime. "Accessing MySpace illegally?" Now, I don't have a MySpace page, but it was my understanding that anyone could open a MySpace page and use it to contact other people. You don't even have to give your real name when you do so. I'd rather see some harassment charges or even something along the lines of manslaughter. What she did was psychologically manipulate that girl until she killed herself. That was the crime. MySpace was just the method.
Thats the problem - this is a fishing expedition (Score:5, Insightful)
If you read the story its because they can't nail her for the suicide they are doing this because "they have to do something". Which makes this case all the worse. I am wondering if the "hate crime" angle wasn't explored, its as silly as the approach they are taking.
So basically she does something which causes another to harm themselves. Technically she didn't cause the harm and as such is immune to prosecution. So instead they will twist a law and trump up some charges on this twist in regards to rules violated no one would ever consider for serious prosecution.
Lovely, whats next. If crap like this succeeds it opens everyone up to any fishing expedition law enforcement cares to make
Charged with the wrong crime (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Impersonation and fraud (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"..., rather than whether or not she commited computer fraud?"
A) Is that a crime? as in written into law.
B) If it is, that would be hard to prove.
If there is no law, then she shouldn't be tried. Use this effort to make a good law, not to stretch existing laws far beyond their intent.
Wider implications (Score:2)
If she is convicted, but there is no change in military policy, isn't that a double standard?
Re:Wider implications (Score:5, Informative)
"tortious", not "torturous".
constituting a tort; wrongful.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it is a double standard. But there is a difference between government law enforcement against and everyone else. Codified into law, there literally are, two standards.
Given "just cause" agents of the government can do what ever our laws allow them to do. There are many things the police and military personal can do legally, and many more they can get away with, that I could not.
An officer can probably get away with bringing a gun just about anywhere, while I could not. [S]he could also get awa
I'd be happy... (Score:2, Insightful)
A better crime? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hello!? This is a 30+-year-old woman lying about her identity in order to start a romantic relationship with a 13-year-old girl! Of course her intent was not sexual but if Lori Drew's HUSBAND had perpetrated this exact same "prank" I guarantee the not-quite-accurate charge would have been sexually soliciting a minor, not breaking a EULA!
The jury is sympathetic enough in this case that I think this charge could definitely pass...
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I have mixed feelings about this case (Score:5, Insightful)
"Personally, I would like to have seen a state prosecutor charge her with at least second degree murder because it's a very reasonable conclusion from the evidence that Meier wouldn't have committed suicide had Drew not done what she did, and Drew had a reasonable basis to know that her actions would lead to the girl's suicide."
IANAL but it's my understanding that the deference between first degree murder, second degree murder and manslaughter is premeditated, unplanned (ie: passion killing) and without the element of intent (wanted to hurt him, didn't mean to kill him) respectively.
So by your logic the grounds would be first degree murder since, by your words, she had every reason to know that her actions would lead the girl's death and her actions were conducted over a period of time. Not in the heat of the moment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well said.
Re: (Score:2)
Any first year torts student knows that Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress is NOT an unconstitutionally vague offense, but is a well established tort cause of action.
The elements for IIED are typically as follows, however it varies from state to state.
1. Defendant acted intentionally or recklessly; and
2. Defendant's conduct was extreme and outrageous; and
3. Defendant's act is the cause of such distress; and
4. P
everyone on slashdot will react to this (Score:5, Insightful)
as if the woman is prosecuted for saying she doesn't like gw bush online
no folks, this is way beyond simple thought crime
context is everything:
1. the woman knew the girl was emotionally unstable
2. the woman is an adult, the girl was a minor
3. the woman purposefully set up a fake account with the intent of faking a boy who was interested in her, got her interested in this fake person, and then started insulting her, in the role of the fake boy, and suggesting she commit suicide
in other words, an adult willfully manipulated an emotionally unstable minor over a prolonged period of time with the intent of causing her psychological harm
surely some of you can support any law coming out of this case. surely some of you recognize this case is an extreme outlier and can in no way be confused with everyday garden variety trolling and meanness
if the law is limited to the context of an adult purposefully causing psychological harm over a prolonged period of time to someone they KNOW is a minor and is emotionally unstable, surely you can see that the idea of a slippery slope does not apply
context is everything, and the context here is really extreme
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There is no crime there.
It's wrong, but what law did she break?
Of course
technicality (Score:2)
the moral reprehensibility of what she did obviously has to be punished. the idea of laws is to maintain a well-functioning society. we have laws against rapists, murders, etc., so we can keep these people away form society. this woman is a psychopath. she should not be allowed to be free in society. she has aptly demonstrated she is a danger to others. whatever law exists or does not exist, the moral basis for her punishment is 100% sound
Re:technicality (Score:5, Insightful)
That isn't how a fair justice system works.
If what she did was so bad and she should be punished but she didn't break any laws then bad luck she should get away with it.
The solution is to enact laws to make whatever is so bad a punishable offence. Now if she or anyone else does it again they can be punished.
One person getting away with something is completely irrelevant - and in the grand scheme of things completely unimportant. Just pretend they never found out "who dun it" like with thousands of other crimes if it makes you feel better.
If she's so evil she needs to be kept away fromk society, then she'll do it again and the new law can then be used. (and yes another dead person is a small price to pay, for staying away from being a total police state).
man you are ignorant (Score:2, Insightful)
it is cases like this that write new laws
duh
"and yes another dead person is a small price to pay, for staying away from being a total police state"
ignorant and retarded on so many levels. as if the creation of new law has anything do with a police state. as if your excusing of psychopathic murder is somehow no worse than what goes on in a police state, making you and your attitude worse than what you fear
Re: (Score:2)
Punishing someone via the justice system, when they didn't violate a law - but did something you find morally wrong. Is exactly a police state.
From the crappy source that is wikipedia:
"""
A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.
""" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state [wikipedia.org]
Using the legal system to punish someone who didn't break the damn law is exactly
completely fucking stupid (Score:2, Interesting)
a police state exerts the will of a political agenda
here we are talking about an affront to basic moral sensibility
complete, utterly, totally fucking unrelated things
furthermore, a law is not a piece of comptuer code, it is made to be interpreted by human beings. a law can be stretched to an extreme, sure, but if it is done in the service of justice, which this case obviously cries out for, then the law is still doing the job it was intended to do
you have this really strange notion of what a law is and its
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
-From nedlohs:
"One person getting away with something is completely irrelevant - and in the grand scheme of things completely unimportant. Just pretend they never found out "who dun it" like with thousands of other crimes if it makes you feel better."
Well I would love to see how unimportant this is in the "grand scheme of things" when it is your son/daughter/dog, whatever most /.ers have relationships with. I'm sure you'll be really proud of your kid for setting a standard for a new law.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Maybe you should make sure you're putting the correct person on trial here.
"The Woman" who actually typed the messages and talked the girl into killing herself is immune from prosecution because she agreed to testify against Lori Drew. Ms. Drew was not the originator of any of the messages from the fictional boy to the girl.
Examining the available facts indicates that this was an activity which Ms. Drew's assistant and daughter engaged in.
thank you for summarizing the defense's position (Score:2)
the facts i read them show her to be the originator of the messages, not the assistant or the daughter. every convicted murderer or rapist likewise wan't there or was tricked in to
the crime
but we shall soon see, as the case proceeds in a court of law, won't we?
but thanks for your helping of bias
Re: (Score:2)
I like how everyone who disagrees with you on any topic is filled with bias, while you are the one true observer. It's cute.
And to tag team this post as a reply to Csartanis below me:
You'll notice that TFA quotes Susan Prouty, a former client of Ms. Drew who may or may not be reliable, have an axe to grind etc... Her testimony will come under examination soon enough. I still think that based on the actual evidence available that Ms. Drew is not the one who should be punished for this. If new evidence comes
zzz (Score:2)
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1037825&cid=25848195 [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for this. I was really inspired by the bottom-quote today, in light of most of the responses to this article:
The more I see of men the more I admire dogs. -- Mme De Sevigne, 1626-1696
I don't know if context is the most important part of this, although it's more relevant than other issues brought forth. (Emo kids? GW Bush? Fuck me...) The real issue here is the abuse -- abuse to death!!! -- of another person. I personally don't care what the mechanic of that abuse was: MySpace, stalking, kidnapping,
allow me to make you more depressed: (Score:2)
on nov 19, a 19 yo guy committed suicide live on webcam
1,500 people watched, with LOLs and hahaha and "go ahead and do it, faggot"
sometimes, humanity is a pretty heady combination of disgusting and low iq
my disgust is such that i fantasize right now of faking a videofeed of a suicide, tracking the ip of anyone who LOLs at it, finding them, and peeling their skin off with a razor blade. such is my disgust at such utterly fucktarded trolls. finding and doing greivous bodily harm to these assholes is the only
Re: (Score:2)
in other words, an adult willfully manipulated an emotionally unstable minor over a prolonged period of time with the intent of causing her psychological harm
But thats not what she is being prosecuted for. Go read the NYT article: "Missouri law enforcement officials said they had not found enough evidence to bring charges in the case". I think its still traditional in some states that you need evidence to convict someone.
Consequently, she's being prosecuted for computer fraud - although its perfectly clear why she's really in court, and the prosecution has already made damn sure the jury knows that this is about a dead kid.
if the law is limited to the context of an adult purposefully causing psychological harm over a prolonged period of time...
The only "laws" involved in this case
Simplified (Score:2)
Bizarre Definition of "Internet Service Provider"? (Score:2)
Just started reading the indictment, and I came across something that struck me as curious. There is a section called "Computer Terminology" that gives the plaintiff's version of a definition of "Internet Service Provider":
(Emphasis mine). I thought the bit about storing electronic
Re:Dragging on? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course. But, then again, people are outraged over this; she supposedly broke the law to intentionally hurt someone.
She's a bitch, and shouldn't be allowed in society. People like this are worthless pimples on the ass of society.
Re:Dragging on? (Score:5, Funny)
Mod parent troll! Muhahahaha!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
One of the greater things about humanity is the capacity to take terrible things in stride. A lot of people can make jokes about truly horrific things such as this girl's death or the Holocaust that, so long as you understand it isn't serious, are funny.
Monty Python's "No One Expects The Spanish Inquisition" is a great example of this by the way.
Face it, "trolled to death" is a funny phrase. It's just ridiculous. The majority of people can't imagine being so depressed that it could even happen, even with
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your post hurt my feelings so much that I attempted to commit suicide. You should be put behind bars for intentionally trying to hurt me through cyber-bullying.
But seriously, STFU.
Totally agree. If it hadn't been for this, she probably would have offed herself over something equally ignorant. Not to mention that this case is now about "hacking." Essentially, if convicted, it will make creating and using a fake account punishable by up to five years for each offense. I've created fake accounts plenty of times, enough that I would be able to spend the rest of my life in prison. We should really blame Hawthorne Heights and the like for perpetuating a scene that gives you more cool point
Re:Dragging on? (Score:5, Insightful)
And... lighting the bomb doesn't count as "bad"?
No, you can't use the "It was BOUND to happen one way or another" excuse, either; unless you happen to have PERFECT evidence (IE the ability to see into the future) then you can't say for sure that she would have 'offed herself' as you so kindly put it.
Plus, there is the "thin skull" thing in law; basically, if you do something that wouldn't cause a *normal* person harm, but the person has a pre-existing condition (in the original case, a thin skull that was struck and killed the person) that causes the 'normal' action to be deadly, it's *still* murder. In other words, ignorance of a pre-existing condition doesn't exempt you from your actions.
Re:Dragging on? (Score:4, Insightful)
They are only trying to do this route because there is NO law on the books against what she did. And allowing them to bend this law to get her would set an ominous precedent.
This is much like years ago where I think it was a landlord, or maybe a neighbor set up cameras in someone house to spy on them nude or having sex. While it was a reprehensible act, there as no law on the books against it, and they had to let the perp go free. Laws were subsequently passed against this act, and that is how this case should be treated.
That being said, I dunno how a law against this could be written to where it wasn't so overly broad that the mere flaming or bashing someone on the internet could result in prosecution because anyone could say they were being bullied. This would also probably hit some people that were fairly complaining about someone, or posting negative comments about them. It could hurt whistleblowers.
I dunno if you can legislate anti-bullying.
But, while this act was horrible, I think it is a case of where no law on the books is there to prosecute it, and I hope they are not allowed to try to bend a law that is clearly not applicable to this case, into a successful prosecution.
Re:Dragging on? (Score:4, Interesting)
They are only trying to do this route because there is NO law on the books against what she did. And allowing them to bend this law to get her would set an ominous precedent.
Are we sure about that?
I know in Canada we have a "sexual interference with a minor" law, maybe Missouri has something applicable. She certainly carried on a courtship with the girl. And it's pretty obvious that Megan was interested romantically. as well, one of the topics of discussion was sex.
If Lori Drew were a guy (other than a congressman, of course), I have little doubt he'd be in jail now, and on a sex-offender registry as well. I agree that the statutes they are using are rubbish, but I wouldn't be surprised if some sex-crime statute has been violated.
At the risk of having a "what about the children" moment... The amount of callous comments here are ridiculous (not directed at P). An adult psychologically manipulated and abused a kid, and it gets responded to by blaming the kid ("she would have done it anyways..." etc.).
Re:Dragging on? (Score:5, Insightful)
This, on the other hand, is trying to take a hacking law and apply it to something that is clearly not, repeat, NOT hacking. Cayenne's phrasing, "ominous precedent," puts it pretty succinctly. The government can't be allowed to apply whatever law it feels like because the other ones don't fit. That's why we have laws in the first place.
It's unfortunate that every time a mother with a teary eye shows up on the TV, people get whipped into an emotional frenzy without taking a moment to evaluate the unintended consequences of their desired course of action.
Re:Dragging on? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Dragging on? (Score:5, Insightful)
For the love of all that is, people need to learn to take some fucking responsibility for the their own actions!
Every time I hear/read someone talking about people taking responsibility for their actions, they're always letting someone else get off scott free on their actions.
The girl killed herself. She has already paid for her actions. Now it's time for the woman to take responsibility for what she did.
Did she kill the girl? No. Did she contribute to the girl's decision to kill herself? Yes.
Why do you insist that certain people (the girl who killed herself) have to be responsible for their actions, while other people (the woman who helped drive the girl to do it) do not?
And drop the "I was bullied and didn't kill myself so no one else can use that as an excuse" bullshit. People are different. People's circumstances are different. If you got through your own torment and came out okay, then good for you. That has absolutely nothing to do with anyone else's circumstances, ever.
Re:Dragging on? (Score:5, Informative)
Your post would make sense if she were being charged with murder. However [bbc.co.uk]:
IANAL. But the relevant bits here are that the defendant appears to have lied regarding her identity to multiple parties, for the express purpose of inflicting emotional harm on someone. As it turns out, the mere act of her lying is prosecutable, because it led to damages (emotional harm contributing to the victim's suicide).
"She's not guilty of murder" is a straw man - if the DA thought there was a murder charge worth prosecuting there, they likely would have pursued it. This isn't a murder charge.
Re:Dragging on? (Score:4, Insightful)
...we do not legislate morality...
Is the question of whether or not it is okay to kill anything other than a moral question?
All laws are based on morality, and there are even many laws that enforce someone's view of "moral activity" despite having no bearing on anyone outside of the perpetrators (whereas something like murder clearly affects more than just those involved). For example, prostitution laws. Or how about laws against consensual oral and/or anal sex that exist in some States? Or, to delve into an issue of contemporary civil law, how about the law preventing people from marrying members of the same sex?
If Ms. Drew is legally responsible for this girl's death, then should rappers be responsible for someone doing drive-bys because they heard it in the lyrics, or, to use an old reference, should Beavis and Butthead be responsible for some kids burning down a trailer park because the cartoon characters were pyros?
The primary difference between this case and the examples you provided is that her actions were specifically directed at the victim with the intention of harming said victim. And she succeeded in doing just that.
Re:Dragging on? (Score:4, Insightful)
I got the impression she was a domineering helicopter mom constantly interfering in her daughter's life from the wired article. Her daughter got into a "fight" with Megan and it sounded like it was over and forgotten and/or forgiven but her Mom couldn't let it go. In most states the Mom might have easily been convicted of stalking, involuntary manslaughter, and conspiracy which would easily put her into 3 time loser category for an extra 5 years as well. Pathetic isn't the word I would chose, predatory is.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What about the pills? (Score:2)
Pills' secondary effect (Score:5, Informative)
The health professional who allowed the girl's condition to deteriorate so while under his/her care is another story altogether, and is at least most likely guilty of malpractice.
Well, I can't manage to find precise information about the drug the girl was treated with, but fact is, some anti-depressant, specially old one [wikipedia.org] which work on the dopamine & adrenaline pathways (less the more recent which work on the serotonin pathways) have quite some secondary effect.
Normally depression is associated with a strong lack of will and lack of energy, the patient just sits around and doesn't want to do anything (aboulia in latin, sorry don't know the proper english word).
The old antidepressant have a much quicker effect on the the lack of will, than on the sadness and morbid thoughts of depression. This leaves a window during which the patient has already more energy to act, but still has lots of dark/sad ideas. During this period, the patient has a higher risk to enact the dark thoughs and thus the risk of suicide is elevated.
This risks require proper monitoring of the patient and perhaps, if that's the case, the poor girl was left too much unattended.
I don't think it's a real malpractice coming from the doctor (I don't thing the doctor really fucked up somewhere). But on the other hand insisting a little bit more about the dangers when speaking with the parents would perhaps attracted their attention that girl was going to be quite fragile during the first phase of the therapy.
Other things strike as rather odd :
- She wasn't completely isolated socially, according to wikipedia the girl participated in outdoor activities, etc. For someone not living completely isolated to reach a point where enacting suicide is a sign of very deep problems, the things that could be easily triggered by seemingly mundane situation.
- She commited suicide by hanging according to wikipedia. This is a method with a certain success rates. This isn't the typical girl's suicide (most girls statistically are more likely to resort to less "definitive" ways, like sleep pill overdoses). Often the suicide attempts look a lot like a "call to help".
The hanging show quite some determination to kill herself.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You people think that all triggers affect one equally; from experience, they don't.
Certain people are *far* more prone to affect by social triggers (such as bullying) than others. People who lead otherwise perfectly happy lives can easily become suicidal over constant bullying.
So, until you've been in this situation, fuck off. You obviously have no god damn clue as to what's going on.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Quit bullying him, you asshat!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And while that is sad for them, you cannot punish people for happening to trigger this, especially if it is impossible for them to have determined it.
First, this woman knew about the girl's condition. Second, according to the eggshell skull rule [wikipedia.org] the sole fact that she performed a deliberately harming action which resulted in death (whether intended or not) would be enough to call this murder.
Re:Dragging on? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Dragging on? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is one of those hard cases which is going to make bad law. There was nothing legitimate to charge Lori Drew with, so they went reaching for any tool available -- in this case, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which has already been pretty badly stretched. If Drew is found guilty (and she will be, on the emotional factor), that sets the precedent that violation of Terms of Service is now a criminal act. Talk about a big stick for ISPs to beat customers with... (share your wifi, go to jail...)
there's no slippery slope (Score:2)
this case is extreme, an outlier. context is everything. of course someone will try to stretch laws for all sorts of dubious purposes, but if the results of this case doesn't enable them, some other case will. we shouldn't give this woman a pass because someone somewhere might misinterpret the case and read it out of context. they will do that anyway
Re:Dragging on? (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems to me that this case must not stand. For one it makes the ISP an agent of the state. For example to lie in a court trial carries a penalty. To lie in a cash transaction may carry a penalty. But lying in social situations is not something that carries weight. In essence it is like saying that a lie told at a cocktail party is the same as a lie told in court.
Further, people who go online in social contact areas have prior knowledge that all kinds of nonsense may occur. They are free never to enter or to surf to another type of site at any time. It's like porn. If you don't like it you change the channel or turn of the TV.
And I'm not so sure that anything done purely online can ever reach the edge of torture or harassment. We are not talking about Geronimo and a large group of hostile Apaches circling the wagons here. Vulnerable people need to buck up and stop expecting the world to conform to their tender needs..
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't see that expecting adults to conform to socially expected and well-communicated standards of decency, particularly in regards to minors, should be considered "expecting the world to conform to their tender needs." It is, rather, expecting the world you live in to conform to its own stated standards and expecting society to force out of compliance members back into something resembling acceptable behaviour, or remove them from that society.
And yes, my statement here can be twisted to imply that I per
Laws are not for enforcing (Score:5, Insightful)
Right now, everyone in America is breaking a law. Whether they are punished for the breach depends on how much money they have, who they know, who they have cheated, and if the public is aware of the crime or not.
They are there so if you get in the way of the powerful, they can throw the book at you. In this case, it's a good thing, since this person, for no other reason than malice, emotionally abused someone just for the "fun" of it. Other times, victimless crimes like possession are used to keep the prison population high and the ghettos under control.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you have some sources contrary to what's found here [wikipedia.org], you haven't done anything but give your opinion.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Dragging on? (Score:5, Insightful)
nothing new here unfortunately . I've long since grown tired of seeing people do things that are perhaps immoral, but not illegal, only to see some unrelated, irrelevant law bent in an attempt to make what they did illegal.
The "bad laws" are the problem here. Too many new laws are hitting the books either with little care taken to limit their scope, or to outright ignore limitations. Loopholes and overly broad definitions are woven in, under the guise that something in the legal machine will act as a sanity-check and "but no one would ever abuse the law". I'm not sure if they're being naive, or doing it on purpose. I know I've long since learned, anything that can be abused, will be abused eventually. It always works that way. Always has, always will. Make something open to abuse, and it will get abused, usually sooner than you expect.
When you make a law with the hopes that some sanity check will prevent abuse, such as interpretation of a vaugity in the law by a judge, you'll find that some judges are naive, some judges have an agenda, and some parties have bottomless wallets to tilt the balances in their favor. The latter of the three being the major problem lately. You can never rely on "the system" only interpreting a law the "correct" way. Either you spell it out, or may as well not even bother. Making a vague law is worse than making no law at all, because when you make a vague law, you transform a situation from being undefined, to being possibly legal or possibly illegal, depending on the day of the week.
Re: (Score:2)
What's needed is proper education of jurors that they are that sanity check. That it's their job to see where prosecutors are using laws far outside their intended scope and acquit, that it's their job to ignore laws which start from a foundation of distorting objective reality (Because the average temperature in the united states in -40 degrees; all persons must wear heavy duffle coats on pain of 10 years imprisonment, for instance), that it's their
Re:Dragging on? (Score:4, Interesting)
I know I've long since learned, anything that can be abused, will be abused eventually
To make an analogy for /.:
Most programmers make mistakes
Most groups of programmers make mistakes (no matter how big your group is)
These mistakes do get abused eventually. The problem is that there is no one doing 'sanity' tests on these laws and attempting to abuse them before they get made, while we have companies who do 'sanity' tests with QA and hired security consultants.
You are right, we need more sanity checks, especially for things like laws, the controlling factor of society.
Re: (Score:2)
This is one of those hard cases which is going to make bad law. There was nothing legitimate to charge Lori Drew with, so they went reaching for any tool available -- in this case, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which has already been pretty badly stretched. If Drew is found guilty (and she will be, on the emotional factor)
But will probably be undone on appeal.
Re: (Score:2)
the intentional infliction of emotional distress action is a civil action and not, strictly speaking, at issue in this trial. The unauthorized access isn't being construed as criminal activity in and of itself, but only in so far as it was committed to further a tortious act.
So, no, it would not set the precedent you fear (unless you routinely share your wifi in the process of committing assault, or for the purposes of harrassment).
That said, i'm not really comfortable with the precedent it *would* set e
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Resolved without a trial? You mean like "by death-squad"?
Re:Dragging on? (Score:5, Funny)
It's the boyfriend that strangled her to death and hung her in her room making it look like the fault of the woman that was harassing her.
Or am I the only one that watches Law and Order.
Re: (Score:2)
That is why this case is so scary. If she can get put in jail for violating the TOS of a website then it would spell disaster for the internet.
People want her in jail because the outcome of what she did was so terrible. However, people do this all the time. She did nothing legally wrong. Making what she did illegal is going to spell trouble for everyone's freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe all we need is a law that says it's illegal to be a manipulative, predatory jackass anywhere.
Which will never get passed as it would mean that at least half of congress would have to be locked up, along with just about every lobbyist in Washington. Not necessarily a bad thing for the general public, but who the hell is going to vote/lobby themselves into prison?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The point is that the law should have to catch up. You know that whole no 'ex post facto' rule in the constitution? When anything you don't like can be called illigal by purposefully misinterpreting the written law, you have thrown a very important part of our constitution out the window.
Yeah, the woman did a horrible thing. And yeah, you could argue that there should be a law against it. But the point is that there isn't one. And if there's no law, than the justice system should have no power to punis
Re: (Score:2)
Well, no. They're throwing out the concept of ex-post-facto but not the letter of the law. More specifically, you cannot charge someone after the law was created. It says nothing about so-called "reinterpretation" of a law at the time of filing.
What it will come down to is intelligent individuals on the jury (I'm not sure...is this a jury trial?) who can argue that this should be thrown out. It'll be hard since most of the public probably is totally for hanging the woman and anyone else involved. The whole
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong Way (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, the big issues here are that the law is being misapplied to fit circumstances clearly not within its purview, and the action itself isn't actually criminal.
This is a perfect case for a civil suit instead. What they are doing is taking a "tort" (punished via lawsuit) and turning it into a "crime" (punished via criminal charges and prison).
This entire case should have been in a civil court from the beginning.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What's so special about the internet? If I do some offline trolling [kuro5hin.org] ("I guessed she knew Jarry then, but didn't say so. It seems that the married guy had a few beers, too, bacause he's telling me he was fucking Jennie when she was 15. She looks decidedly embarrassed. So I take a shot in her behalf. 'Oh, then you're a pedophile?'") and the guy kills himself over it. Is there a law that would have me incarcerated? If so, use that law for the internet. If not, then again, what makes doing it on the internet an