Actus Reus Week 2 Assignments PDF

Preview

Summary

Self Assessment Example...

Description

Carter v. Commonwealth Petition

What is it about? -Michelle Carter was convicted for the suicide of Conrad Roy III, wherein the victim killed himself through carbon monoxide poisoning in his truck. Carter had originally been indicted on Involuntary Manslaughter charges and was the first case in which somebody was charged for the self-inflicted death of another, in which the ‘abuser’ had no physical hand in the death itself. Carter was sentenced by a grand jury on the grounds of “wantonly and recklessly” assisting the suicide. This Petition for Writ of Certiorari was brought to the Supreme Court of the United States, appealing on the grounds that Carter’s rights (under US Const. Amend. I, Amend. V and Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 265, § 13) had been violated during the proceedings.

How Does This Relate to Causation? -To convict Carter, the Grand Jury had first to prove that she had engaged in unlawful conduct. The words spoken in her text messages to Roy fell outside the scope of the First Amendment. It was proven that the messages constituted “speech integral to criminal conduct”. In order to be convicted of a crime, an Actus Reus must be proven. In this case, it was proven that Carter acted recklessly with her messages. Hence constituting a Breach of Duty of Care for another human being, in this case, the victim.

My Viewpoint on the Issues Raised? -Carter v. Commonwealth brought forth a precedent that had not been fully realised until then; the liability of an individual for the death of a person(s) which they have solicited harmful, accusatory, inflammatory, or abusive messages/words to. -Carter was convicted of Involuntary Manslaughter and faced a 2.5-year prison sentence, which was then reduced to 15 months plus 5 years probation. In my personal opinion is that the defendant deserved greater sentencing. Carter displayed abhorrent negligence of assumed responsibility, and by acting in such a way that she, as the court described, “underwent a systemic campaign of coercion” to convince Roy to follow through on his suicide plans. This occurred after Carter had been discharged from an inpatient treatment facility. Carter is quoted as instructing Roy to “get back in the car” after he attempted to “get out of the truck, seeking fresh air”. Carter’s actions and words are unquestionably intentional. The significant level of abuse reached its climax a month before Roy committed suicide, and was continuous throughout that period. It was proven that Carter had acted with mens rea, a guilty mind, as such, in my eyes, the facts of the case should have lead to much more impactful sentencing than what was prescribed.

Erin Gallagher Suicide; Cyberbullying and Teen Suicide

What is it about? -The article focuses on the death of a 13-year old girl by the name of Erin Gallagher. The child had posted comments on the forum website Ask.fm discussing her consideration of suicide after having been “subjected to a bullying campaign”. The article goes on to cover similar instances of teenage suicide, concluding that cyberbullying has a significant, if not direct influence in situations regarding this issue. Two other victims, Ciara Pugsley and Amanda Todd are mentioned. The article touches on calls for Ask.fm to be banned, holding the website responsible for Gallagher’s death.

How Does This Relate to Causation? -This instance of suicide has seen both the website itself and the users behind the abusive messages directed at Gallagher be accused of holding responsibility for her death. Ask.fm is a completely anonymous service, that states in Section 10b. of their TOU that they cannot be held responsible for any damages caused to a user of their platform. These two factors ensure that nobody involved is liable for the death of Erin Gallagher. While there was a clear actus reus as shown in the actions and words of the perpetrating users, both parties consented to Ask.fm’s terms of use as referenced above. Perhaps the users themselves could have been prosecuted in this instance, however, once again the anonymous nature of the site means that no personally identifiable information is stored by Ask.fm, and so cannot be provided to authorities.

My Viewpoint on the Issues Raised? -Similar to Carter v. Commonwealth, the Gallagher issue involved another party, in this case, the anonymous users on Ask.fm, soliciting harmful and threatening messages towards the victim. However, in this instance, there is no logical way to impart blame onto either the host service (Ask.fm) or the perpetrating users. All parties involved consented to the Terms and Conditions as laid out in Section 10b. of Ask.fm’s TOU, indemnifying the host from any consequences arising due to actions taken by its users. The calls made for the service to be shut down did not take into account this legal indemnity. I feel as if though, while both Carter and these anonymous users shared a similar voluntary responsibility for their actions, the situations are very different in that Carter and Roy had a history with one another, and were directly communicating. Ask.fm was seen as a third party, used by the perpetrators to harass and bully young Erin Gallagher, sadly, however immoral and disappointing it might be, there is no legal route that could be taken to hold these users accountable for the victim’s death.

Essay...