There's an interesting conundrum here, and the answer isn't much easier to see once you consider the precedent it sets.

If you allow this to be a case of manslaughter, then if anyone sends someone a text saying "go kill yourself" then this would be attempted manslaughter. correct? So who would arbitrate what is a serious attempt to get someone to kill themselves, and what is simply someone venting frustration? This ordeal we find ourselves in is much colder and i wouldn't be surprised to learn if that Girl were a sociopath or worse (in a sorority)

Furthermore I'm confused to how this is involuntary... perhaps she plead down the charges which would make the most sense.


***As a sidenote for bullying and harassment as an overall issue online, i feel like the issues are not dissimilar to libel and slander laws. by posting something available to the general public, defamation should still apply as it does to all the press.***


Now back to the main issue, we generally see such harassment to a single individual as either overt or subliminal. clearly this is the latter. As a general rule before cell phones, you are allowed to verbally abuse someone as much as you please as long as you are not disturbing the peace of making threats or inciting violence. We see this occur enough on campuses where the phrase "you are a Nazi" is generally thrown around as much as "Yes i'll supersize it" and "Diabetic? how'd you know!?"

I live in Oklahoma. we're good at eating (and apparently neo-naziism, who knew?)


So what do cell phones constitute? it's a device made specifically to be accessed by anyone who has the number... so it's in theory open as any public forum would be. the twist is it allows for extreme privacy, despite not actually accepting the same laws as private estate would.


So let's try to make an analogy, but to an even more extreme example, and then work back to the core of the issue:

Let's say there's a man who needs 3 million dollars for his daughter's heart transplant. I promise him that if he kills himself i will pay for the transplant. Should the state intervene or enact punishment upon me if we were to agree and/or do this?

***sidenote 2.0: it's on private property, and is completely sanitary, so there is no public interference.***

The essential equation is: the man is not depressed, has no mental ailments, but has a logical, coherent reason to kill himself. the state's prohibition of suicide is mostly based upon the idea that people don't ACTUALLY want to kill themselves, but whether or not the State has the right to prevent suicide is another contentious matter altogether.

Furthermore, by not killing himself then his daughter will now not receive the treatment. Now I know what many people are thinking: "what kind of sick person would watch a man die if he's able to save the daughter just by giving up the money?"

Thus many people reach the conclusion that it's perfectly fine to steal the 3 million dollars and walk away, but the precedent this sets is so horrific no political would support theft to that degree

http://s3-origin-images.politico.com/2015/04/30/150430_bernie_sanders_gty_629.jpg

oh. never mind.

but the question we are now facing is: Does the state have the right to regulate YOUR BODY as an asset you can use?

Currently, the answer is yes. Thus, since the teen coopted this boyfriend to use his body in a fashion the state finds unacceptable, then the appropriate charges would be "accessory to suicide"


But let's go back to the morality of this claim, rather than the current legal standing. The government gets to decide the best way for you to use your body? This is why prostitution, suicide, and most drug use are illegal, but legalization of drugs and prostitution are all on there way... and one can only imagine that the legalization of suicide will be the next hot topic for debate next.

***third sidenote!

I can just hear Ogion getting all hot and bothered typing up a response about a woman's right to their own body and how i'm a hypocrite, while he makes a deluge of spelling and grammatical errors. I'd just like to point out that the issue with abortion is the fact that there are two human beings whose rights are interfering with one another in that situation, and the question primarily revolves around "when does the fetus/unborn child get rights?" NOT solely bodily sovereignty.

but i'm sure that won't stop him. *shrug* ***


So that sidenote gone, the issue of suicide comes down to the morals, and the ethics of a situation.

If i see a lion below me on a cliff about to eat my younger brother, i can jump off the cliff killing the lion and myself-

***Fourth sidenote (jesus christ this is excessive)

for this purposes of this thought experiment, all killing of lions is perfectly legal. if you're a full radical PETA bitch then pretend it's a robotic lion. i dunno. piss off.***

- but i get to save my brother. morally i deem this to be a good action, as i am saving a younger sibling of mine, who now can live out the rest of his life (and he has more of it left than me). Everyone always applauds the noble SACRIFICE in movies, but when it's done by depression, there's a split:

some see it as a tragedy of the environment causing someone to do this, others see it as selfishness of the individual.

Both of these are MORAL claims, but the Principle behind the act of killing yourself, should be consistent. there is no real ethical dilemma in this, as killing yourself can be seen as both morally righteous and deleterious depending on the subjective point of view. Given that the government is not supposed to take any subjective control of one's own right to their life, liberty, and property, then the ethical (and thus legal standard) must be that that suicide is permissible.


And now back to our current situation, we have a distinct duality of perspective.

One may say that this woman goaded this man to take his own life, which he personally did not truly wish to do.

Another may say that this woman goaded this man to take his own life for he own benefit, and she was convincing enough to make him do it.

Let's assume we're operating with two individuals both devoid of any mental illness: the government must allow freedom of will to play it's part, i can convince someone to burn their property to ash, i can convince someone to destroy their livelihood, but from life liberty and property, is there an ethical problem?

***sidenote number 5

ethical being a principle based off of a code, this current one being the right to life liberty and property, moral being an inner belief in right and wrong***

The restriction of freedom of will is not up to the government to regulate.

HOWEVER: if one of these individuals is mentally ill, the family has guardianship over him or her.

***sidenote number 6(66#LazarusShallRiseWithSatan)

Up to this point i've been operating under the assumption the parties are over 18 and considered adults.***


The CURRENT problem with the article linked, is we do not know whether or not the man had mental illness, and we do knot know whether or not the girl KNEW whether or not he had any kind of mental illness.

the answers to those two questions are going to be key in determining the objective ethical dilemma the State SHOULD react to.







But on a personal moral level, she's a total cunt