The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums
-
Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community
In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
If you do not have an account, please register.
REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your InfoPLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.
Michelle Carter? Should she have been found guilty or not?
- Thread starter mcbrion
- Start date
NotHardUp1
What? Me? Really?
It is a very difficult case.
Of course he died at his own hand, but he was vulnerable and she exploited that vulnerability. The law is indeed in the business of protecting vulnerable citizens.
On the other hand, if verbal prodding can be the basis of legal accountability, military recruiters have also exploited the fatalistic, nihilistic predisposition of many teens who figure they might as well go fight since they have no great desire to live to be old.
What Michelle Carter did was truly reprehensible. He had actually left the truck to save himself when she convinced him to go back. I feel sick just thinking about it. Her case will eventually be overturned on appeal. Although I am glad it is torturous for her to contemplate her potential unhappiness, that is spite, not justice. He will not be brought back. His family has been deeply wounded, and her actions were monstrous.
I would argue that the comparison with Manson is not relevant. Manson ordered murder of the unwilling just as surely as an prison camp commandant. He should never walk free again, ever.
May his family eventually have some peace. It is so sad.
Of course he died at his own hand, but he was vulnerable and she exploited that vulnerability. The law is indeed in the business of protecting vulnerable citizens.
On the other hand, if verbal prodding can be the basis of legal accountability, military recruiters have also exploited the fatalistic, nihilistic predisposition of many teens who figure they might as well go fight since they have no great desire to live to be old.
What Michelle Carter did was truly reprehensible. He had actually left the truck to save himself when she convinced him to go back. I feel sick just thinking about it. Her case will eventually be overturned on appeal. Although I am glad it is torturous for her to contemplate her potential unhappiness, that is spite, not justice. He will not be brought back. His family has been deeply wounded, and her actions were monstrous.
I would argue that the comparison with Manson is not relevant. Manson ordered murder of the unwilling just as surely as an prison camp commandant. He should never walk free again, ever.
May his family eventually have some peace. It is so sad.
Georgiadude
JUB Addict
After reading some of the texts she sent him she deserves what she got.
Steven
Steven
I was scared to read the text messages and then I did, horrible, despicable human being. She deserves it.
When you are an accomplice you are as guilty as the one you were with unless you were restrained drugged etc!
NotHardUp1
What? Me? Really?
The problem remains, how does a system of law deal with it? There are monsters every day, in very small population, who do deeds that the law cannot anticipate.
As old as Common Law is, I'm sure there must already be a term for an outlier or an exception, meaning the judge contradicted centuries of precedence with his ruling, and that most cases do not fit within his definition of guilt or accomplice, yet it is a true verdict. Is anyone here legal enough to speak to that in the law? Is there already some Latin phrase that describes a nearly-unique finding?
Additionally, I find the act of encouraging a suicide, as opposed to aiding the suicide of a terminally ill or chronically ill patient, abominable, but I'm not sure how much I view it to be an imprisonable crime. There is a function of society that we do not think of much any more, which is shaming. Incarceration may not be the appropriate punishment for this deed.
Societies have for aeons branded outcasts to ensure they were free to go, yet would never be welcomed again. In our age, I'm not sure an permanent tattoo would not be in appropriate. Plenty of people wear face tattoos now.
Why can the ruling not be that she bear the inscription "Killed Conrad" on her forehead, and a condition of her freedom be that she is forever to check in with probation that the tattoo remains? After all, she isn't so much a threat to the world in her unique crime. She is more a pariah who should forever live with what she did to that poor guy.
She's not a child. She wasn't a child when she did it. It was a pretty horrible thing, but is prison the right punishment.
We really do not think very imaginatively about crime and punishment. It's always just a couple of arguments about leniency or rehabilitation, not justice. The life and death of Mr. Roy sort of argue that Michelle Carter should always be identified for what she did.
As old as Common Law is, I'm sure there must already be a term for an outlier or an exception, meaning the judge contradicted centuries of precedence with his ruling, and that most cases do not fit within his definition of guilt or accomplice, yet it is a true verdict. Is anyone here legal enough to speak to that in the law? Is there already some Latin phrase that describes a nearly-unique finding?
Additionally, I find the act of encouraging a suicide, as opposed to aiding the suicide of a terminally ill or chronically ill patient, abominable, but I'm not sure how much I view it to be an imprisonable crime. There is a function of society that we do not think of much any more, which is shaming. Incarceration may not be the appropriate punishment for this deed.
Societies have for aeons branded outcasts to ensure they were free to go, yet would never be welcomed again. In our age, I'm not sure an permanent tattoo would not be in appropriate. Plenty of people wear face tattoos now.
Why can the ruling not be that she bear the inscription "Killed Conrad" on her forehead, and a condition of her freedom be that she is forever to check in with probation that the tattoo remains? After all, she isn't so much a threat to the world in her unique crime. She is more a pariah who should forever live with what she did to that poor guy.
She's not a child. She wasn't a child when she did it. It was a pretty horrible thing, but is prison the right punishment.
We really do not think very imaginatively about crime and punishment. It's always just a couple of arguments about leniency or rehabilitation, not justice. The life and death of Mr. Roy sort of argue that Michelle Carter should always be identified for what she did.
NotHardUp1
What? Me? Really?
Michelle Carter Ruling vs. the Salem Witch Trials
Mods, please do not merge this thread with the one about the verdict. It is a stand-alone discussion of only one question, not the case as a whole, and not the verdict per se.
The Salem witch trials from four centuries ago are widely scorned as hysteria and savagery of a society that abandoned true justice and began to allow members of that society to exact horrible punishment on those whom they found unfriendly, ugly, anti-societal, or who had wealth they wanted to acquire.
The media cases today very much foster a hysteria that is continuing a rough justice appeal, with guilt or innocence not being the question in media coverage, but the ability of a television host, radio narrator, or writer to describe acts in the most polarized and emotional terms possible.
Do you think we have increasingly encouraged a lynch mob mentality via infotainment?
Discuss.
Mods, please do not merge this thread with the one about the verdict. It is a stand-alone discussion of only one question, not the case as a whole, and not the verdict per se.
The Salem witch trials from four centuries ago are widely scorned as hysteria and savagery of a society that abandoned true justice and began to allow members of that society to exact horrible punishment on those whom they found unfriendly, ugly, anti-societal, or who had wealth they wanted to acquire.
The media cases today very much foster a hysteria that is continuing a rough justice appeal, with guilt or innocence not being the question in media coverage, but the ability of a television host, radio narrator, or writer to describe acts in the most polarized and emotional terms possible.
Do you think we have increasingly encouraged a lynch mob mentality via infotainment?
Discuss.
I don't think branding her is good enough at all in this case. These texts show that she is someone very disturbed.
She manipulated, constantly convinced and reinforced the idea, was giving him ideas over the pretty decent period of time. She wanted him to kill himself, it sounded like a game to her and her going to prison fits this crime because of that. This wasn't some everyday internet person saying "go kill yourself", this was someone preying on someone "weaker", she might as well have pulled the trigger here. These weren't just some "words", this was cold and calculated, she did everything in her power to make sure that he would make the decision that he did.
If this happened over the course of a day, I might feel differently about the sentencing. But over the course of time it happened and her consistent role in this situation to me says that prison time is applicable.
She manipulated, constantly convinced and reinforced the idea, was giving him ideas over the pretty decent period of time. She wanted him to kill himself, it sounded like a game to her and her going to prison fits this crime because of that. This wasn't some everyday internet person saying "go kill yourself", this was someone preying on someone "weaker", she might as well have pulled the trigger here. These weren't just some "words", this was cold and calculated, she did everything in her power to make sure that he would make the decision that he did.
If this happened over the course of a day, I might feel differently about the sentencing. But over the course of time it happened and her consistent role in this situation to me says that prison time is applicable.
Re: Michelle Carter Ruling vs. the Salem Witch Trials
I think there are always lynch mobs ready and waiting, there are people that are always angry over something. I think there are individuals in the "media" that fuel that but I also think social media has become a huge part of this mentality and why it has become more apparent and visible. The internet has really opened up the floodgates where getting sucked into an echo-chamber is just a click away.
Though at the same time, I feel like people have used social media tools in ways that actually helped out when it comes to finding people, criminals, pets, or just generally getting information around in specific cases. So it isn't exactly all bad.
I think there are always lynch mobs ready and waiting, there are people that are always angry over something. I think there are individuals in the "media" that fuel that but I also think social media has become a huge part of this mentality and why it has become more apparent and visible. The internet has really opened up the floodgates where getting sucked into an echo-chamber is just a click away.
Though at the same time, I feel like people have used social media tools in ways that actually helped out when it comes to finding people, criminals, pets, or just generally getting information around in specific cases. So it isn't exactly all bad.
Re: Michelle Carter Ruling vs. the Salem Witch Trials
I think it also has to do with a general failure in communication. People don't know how to do it anymore.
I think it also has to do with a general failure in communication. People don't know how to do it anymore.
He did not do the crime, no, but he orchestrated it. He created the mentality and desire in others to commit the actual crime. There have been many cases in which those who didn't actually commit the crimes but were found guilty of them. But for their actions, those crimes would not have been committed.
NotHardUp1
What? Me? Really?
Re: Michelle Carter Ruling vs. the Salem Witch Trials
Yes, true. I wasn't thinking of social media so much as the news media. Not fake news, but really not news either, just an endless stream of slanted sentiment that feeds the haters, both right and left.
Yes, true. I wasn't thinking of social media so much as the news media. Not fake news, but really not news either, just an endless stream of slanted sentiment that feeds the haters, both right and left.
Re: Michelle Carter Ruling vs. the Salem Witch Trials
Well, to many, many people, social media has BECOME the news, and it spreads much faster. It is also a faster and easier way for people to get their '15 minutes'. When you can get thousands of supporters hanging on your every word, it's not difficult to work them into a frenzy. They will create their own witch hunts and lynch mobs.
Well, to many, many people, social media has BECOME the news, and it spreads much faster. It is also a faster and easier way for people to get their '15 minutes'. When you can get thousands of supporters hanging on your every word, it's not difficult to work them into a frenzy. They will create their own witch hunts and lynch mobs.
mcbrion
JUB Addict
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2011
- Posts
- 1,637
- Reaction score
- 33
- Points
- 38
We are on the same page here, in case you thought I felt Manson should go free.
People are differentiating between influencing others to murder people and influencing someone to kill themselves. I think the circumstances are worth comparing. I certainly don't think Manson should have gone free: he was dangerous and his acolytes were mentally ill (as, is likely, Michelle Carter and the young man who killed himself). In his (Manson) case, he displayed sociopathic behavior. In hers, not quite the same, but still, after she initially discouraged him, she then did a 180 and at the very end - as the judge pointed out - actively pushed him to get back into the truck (he had gotten out, a clear sign he did not truly want to die) and to kill himself.
People are differentiating between influencing others to murder people and influencing someone to kill themselves. I think the circumstances are worth comparing. I certainly don't think Manson should have gone free: he was dangerous and his acolytes were mentally ill (as, is likely, Michelle Carter and the young man who killed himself). In his (Manson) case, he displayed sociopathic behavior. In hers, not quite the same, but still, after she initially discouraged him, she then did a 180 and at the very end - as the judge pointed out - actively pushed him to get back into the truck (he had gotten out, a clear sign he did not truly want to die) and to kill himself.
mcbrion
JUB Addict
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2011
- Posts
- 1,637
- Reaction score
- 33
- Points
- 38
It is interesting that in World War II, many German soldiers explained their parts in the concentration camps by saying they were "only following orders." Which they were, but it brings up so many questions about when to "just say no." In a war, if a soldier does that, he's jailed. In WWII, they would likely be shot (but I don't know this for a fact), but how does one live with having thrown a switch that would incinerate hundreds of people at a time (and listen to the screams). It's a horrible situation to be in.
luckynumbah7
JUB Addict
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2008
- Posts
- 8,814
- Reaction score
- 122
- Points
- 63
- Location
- City
- Website
- www.justusboys.com
You might be interested in reading about the Milgram experiment. That said, humanity's predilection for obeying authority still rests with taking responsibility for your own actions. That doesn't change because someone in a suit told you to do something and you don't want to rock the boat.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2009
- Posts
- 123,611
- Reaction score
- 194,433
- Points
- 113