Words can now kill

originally posted by: melatonin
a reply to: riiver

You don't seem to fully grasp the impact of highly abusive, coercive, and controlling behaviour.

It can decimate a person's mental health, leading to depression, ptsd, anxiety disorders and even suicidal ideation.

Then when that person does take their own life the abuser can just claim it was only words and they did it by their own hand?

Don't want to live in your world.

I don't want to live in a world where things that cannot be reliably evaluated are crimes.

The field of psychology has come far in the last 100 or so years, but it is still not really a science. You can't reliably prove that a person even has PTSD. You most certainly can't prove they got it from any one place.

Therefore if you send someone to prison over it, you cannot possibly have proved beyond reasonable doubt that they are guilty of causing said PTSD.

Even if they said a lot of mean things, that doesn't necessarily mean the resulting actions were caused by what they said. Crazy people often kill themselves without anyone saying anything to them.




Do you want to live in a world where people go on a witch hunt every time there is a suicide? Are you willing to be one of the witches that gets burned at the stake (or imprisoned until old age?)

The amount of hysteria on this thread is quite something.

No 'new rule' has been created making personal acquaintances automatic suspects in suicide cases. There is not going to be a 'witch hunt' as a result. "Saying nasty things" has not become a criminal offence.

This is one particular case, in which the evidence was clear-cut that the defendant had directly instructed a mentally-ill man to go through with a suicide attempt. She was convicted under existing laws. No precedent has been set.

This isn't a case of "free speech" being curtailed. It's not a harbinger of some kind of collective guilt for all suicides. It's not a slippery slope to anywhere. It's a bit of a one-off court case, and it has attracted news coverage precisely because it is so unusual.

All in all, it's hard to escape the impression that a few posters here are just using this case as a peg on which to hang their personal bugbears, and don't care too much about the facts. Step back, and read the coverage properly.

I don't think you understand how the law works. Every court case sets precedent for the next. No exceptions.

Any highly subjective accusation, such as "behaving with gross negligence" has to be carefully guarded against over-use. Otherwise the police are free to simply lock up anyone they personally dislike for doing normal things.

In my highschool there actually was a kid who killed himself. I had considered befriending him, but I didn't think he would even want to be my friend. In retrospect now I realize he must have had such a shortage of friends that had I befriended him he might not have killed himself.

Any number of people who mistreated him could be considered to be driving him to do what he did. There were quite a few of them. (Thankfully, I never mistreated him, and so I feel perhaps less regret than them.)


It would be really easy. Emotionally very very very easy, for the parents to want some of those kids to suffer, or go to jail.

But it would achieve nothing.

From an evidence perspective, they can prove she gave advise most of the world disagrees with to a person who was thinking of killing himself.

However, they can't prove that her actions decided the outcome.


That's unprovable when dealing with psychology.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I wonder what saying the word Head would do to a guy a year from now, they're banning it i think, and i kinda see it causing riots in the future. Insane # max h.e.a.d room would hate the future!

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
I don't think you understand how the law works. Every court case sets precedent for the next. No exceptions.

I don't think you know what you're talking about. In legal terms, the decision of a lower court in the US cannot bind any future court. I.e., no precedent has been set.

originally posted by: CuriousPaddy
If I encourage a human to kill another human I should be held accountable. Same goes for if I encourage a human to kill themselves.

yeh this just makes me think of manson

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Who said anything about linking abuse to PTSD?

Not that difficult to diagnose - the symptoms of PTSD are pretty obvious. And, to be honest, linking the symptoms to a preceding abusive relationship, sexual assault, etc etc isn't too hard, lol.

Here, it was simply a case of linking her behaviour in pushing her boyfriend to suicide. It was, again, obvious.

Likewise in the case of the ex-partner who took her own life following a campaign of abuse, stalking, and harassment.

Obvious.

originally posted by: audubon

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
I don't think you understand how the law works. Every court case sets precedent for the next. No exceptions.

I don't think you know what you're talking about. In legal terms, the decision of a lower court in the US cannot bind any future court. I.e., no precedent has been set.

That depends on whether there is an appeal. If a higher court upholds it, then it becomes case law up to the highest level it has been appealed and upheld.

The Supreme court hardly ever tries original cases. Instead it hears appeals from lower courts. If it refuses to hear the case, that can be understood as tacit approval of whatever decision the lower court has made.


So, unless either there is no appeal attempt made, or a higher court overturns this decision, it will become law.

originally posted by: melatonin
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Who said anything about linking abuse to PTSD?

Not that difficult to diagnose - the symptoms of PTSD are pretty obvious. And, to be honest, linking the symptoms to a preceding abusive relationship, sexual assault, etc etc isn't too hard, lol.

PTSD itself is not necessarily caused by any one thing. Two people can have exactly the same experience and one gets ptsd, but the other doesn't.

I met a soldier who came back from Afghanistan tell me story of seeing a friend slowly tortured at range by a sniper, attempting to lure his team out. He had to stand by and watch, until an artillery unit was able to kill the sniper. He showed no signs of PTSD.

Other sodiers might get ptsd from simply killing one enemy combatant one time in one firefight.

Different people are built different ways. Cause and effect is at best very murky.

Here, it was simply a case of linking her behaviour in pushing her boyfriend to suicide. It was, again, obvious.

Likewise in the case of the ex-partner who took her own life following a campaign of abuse, stalking, and harassment.

Obvious.

Abuse, stalking, and harassment goes a bit beyond the limits of freedom of speech, and also doesn't necessarily involve ptsd. Even a person totally free of PTSD might, under those circumstances, feel their only escape from the life they are being forced to live is by suicide.

If I restrained someone, tied electrodes to their head, and began delivering electric shocks, then told them the only way I would stop is if they pick up a gun and shoot themself - that wouldn't be much different than what this person did over a longer period of time.

There is no need to bring a pseudo-science like "psychology" into the courtroom here. The matter is fairly cut and dried.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
That depends on whether there is an appeal. If a higher court upholds it, then it becomes case law up to the highest level it has been appealed and upheld.

So, as I was saying, no precedent has in fact been set.

You were claiming that a binding precedent had already been set, now you've changed your argument to saying that a binding precedent might be set in future.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
PTSD itself is not necessarily caused by any one thing. Two people can have exactly the same experience and one gets ptsd, but the other doesn't.

Yeah, predisposition. In no way does that remove responsibility from those who cause the trauma...

To suggest otherwise is pure and simple victim-blaming.

There is no need to bring a pseudo-science like "psychology" into the courtroom here. The matter is fairly cut and dried.

Yeah, keep those forensic psychologists away from the court room. They might identify the callous narcopaths among us (;

Did a psychologist steal your blankie when you were a nipper? lol

originally posted by: audubon

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
That depends on whether there is an appeal. If a higher court upholds it, then it becomes case law up to the highest level it has been appealed and upheld.

So, as I was saying, no precedent has in fact been set.

You were claiming that a binding precedent had already been set, now you've changed your argument to saying that a binding precedent might be set in future.

Yeah. It is in the process of being set, though. This is the first step.

And no matter what happens, it is likely that SOMETHING will be decided. Either it will be definitively decided that the conviction is law, or definitively decided that it is not.

Now is the time for the public to voice its opinions about the issue. The courts aren't technically obligated to respond to public opinion, but they usually do take it into consideration because it makes them appear more credible in the eyes of the public. And being more credible in the eyes of the public makes them more powerful in the tricameral power struggle against the legislative and executive branches.

originally posted by: melatonin

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
PTSD itself is not necessarily caused by any one thing. Two people can have exactly the same experience and one gets ptsd, but the other doesn't.

Yeah, predisposition. In no way does that remove responsibility from those who cause the trauma...

To suggest otherwise is pure and simple victim-blaming.

The problem is that there is no way to prove it. It may be entirely true.

Just as it may be entirely true that a witch DID cause the local crop failure by selling her soul to Satan, performing some evil rituals and bringing a curse on the land.

If you could prove that a witch genuinely did cause bad stuff to happen, the term "witch trial" would lose all of its negative meaning.

There is no need to bring a pseudo-science like "psychology" into the courtroom here. The matter is fairly cut and dried.

Yeah, keep those forensic psychologists away from the court room. They might identify the callous narcopaths among us (;

Did a psychologist steal your blankie when you were a nipper? lol

Actually if you are curious, I had child hood Asperger's syndrome at a time when that usually went un-diagnosed.

The diagnoses that were made by the psychologists that attempted to weigh in and help my parents work with me were accordingly inaccurate, and quite unhelpful.

I prefer for those leech doctors never to have any say in any unwilling person's fate.

So you're aspergers. That's cool.

A condition which generally expresses a deficit in human empathy.

Showing causality between experience(s) and resulting PTSD is not that difficult. It's the reason that many troops return from combat with the condition. They don't pick it up from toilet seats.

Cheers (:

To be honest, I think they pick it up because they are conditioned from childhood to be Christians, and to look at killing and violence in all its forms as morally wrong.

When they put on a uniform and then commit those acts under orders, it tears a hole in their sense of identity.


Possibly the saddest guy I ever met was this former special forces soldier who was a bit drunk, talking to a pair of Mormon missionaries, and explaining to them about how he had 50 confirmed kills, and his soul would never go to heaven, because even though he had made those kills under orders, he was confident that it was still murder.


If he had been on the same battlefield fighting robots, and destroying robots, I think he'd feel a lot different. Even if the robots were still shooting live rounds back at him.

Hmm, an interesting point. I think the background may be shown in how the psychological trauma is expressed after the event.

We see the same issues in conditions like OCD - in very religious individuals it can be shown via compulsive religious behaviours. There is some overlap between OCD and PTSD symptomology, so wouldn't surprise me if you see the similar features for PTSD.

Therefore, it may impact in how the condition is expressed, but unlikely to be a cause in and of itself. I think the stats are something like 50% of sexually assaulted women develop PTSD symptoms. I think the main link is obviously between traumatic event and condition. And other predispositional effects (earlier trauma, genes etc) determine the likelihood of PTSD being an outcome.

So can't see how the argument can be made to overlook the triggering event. If it's an interpersonal trauma, then the person imposing the trauma has to take responsibility.

That's good. I was hoping you wouldn't think that I attribute PTSD to a person simply not being tough enough, or getting too scared.

If that were the cause, I think people would get it more often from things like (not at fault) car accidents, or house fires. Stuff where there is no morality involved.

Instead it seems to happen most often when a person's moral conditioning is being challenged. (Just speaking anecdotally, though.)

originally posted by: melatonin

Therefore, it may impact in how the condition is expressed, but unlikely to be a cause in and of itself. I think the stats are something like 50% of sexually assaulted women develop PTSD symptoms. I think the main link is obviously between traumatic event and condition. And other predispositional effects (earlier trauma, genes etc) determine the likelihood of PTSD being an outcome.

So can't see how the argument can be made to overlook the triggering event. If it's an interpersonal trauma, then the person imposing the trauma has to take responsibility.

Religion has quite a lot to say about a person's sexual behavior. And rape is certainly a crime directed at a person's self image.

Even if the alternative were death, a woman may still feel some guilt or shame over whatever acts she did in order to survive the encounter.

Even consciously knowing she shouldn't feel said guilt.