Nine charged in bullying suicide

[mordea]

And in this instance, it's not just "words".
This girl was raped by one of her tormentors, physically abused by others as well as verbal abuse and threats to herself.

Speculation. Ever hear of the concept 'innocent until proven guilty'?

The day she killed herself, it appears she was also bullied and well yeah, the results speak for themselves.

Correlation does not imply causation. People commit suicide for a number of reasons.

However, she was subjected to that kind of behaviour for over 3 months and it appears to have been continuous.

Almost everyone is bullied during at least one stage of their childhood. Very few take their own life. So I find it to be rather presumptive to claim that the supposed bullying caused the suicide.

The actions of those kids ultimately led to her death.

Speculation. I'd argue that the failure of adults to identify inadequately measured depression constitutes gross negligence, and likely contributed to her suicide.

And yes, they should be held responsible for it.

Why? They didn't force her to commit suicide. She likely killed herself due to underlying illness, which may or may not have been exacerbated by the bullying.

 

[Tiassa]

(Insert Title Here)

Why? They didn't force her to commit suicide. She likely killed herself due to underlying illness, which may or may not have been exacerbated by the bullying.

You ought to try something more than self-contradicting contrarianism reminiscent of a frustrated teenager.

Innocence until proven guilty is vital, indeed, but you do yourself no credit by turning around and so casually diagnosing the problem. But prosecutors are going forward, as Bells has already pointed out, on the premise that the harassment and assaults were calculated to humiliate and ostracize her, "to make it impossible for her to remain at school".

One need not "force" another to commit suicide. Calculated cruelty intending a bad outcome cannot be excused if that outcome is worse than one is willing to admit pursuing. With witness statements and electronic records, at the very least, to present, the evidence in this trial will be, to the one, interesting, and, to the other, likely grim.

Then again, that's why the defendants are being charged with statutory rape and bodily harm.

In the meantime, a number of your points are already addressed in the discussion. Perhaps you might wish to review the other posts, so that you sound more like someone who understands to some reasonable degree what is going on, instead of simply popping off like a snotty delinquent.
____________________

Notes:

Cable News Network. "More students disciplined following girl's suicide". March 31, 2010. Edition.CNN.com. March 31, 2010. http://edition.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/30/massachusetts.bullying.suicide/index.html

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Tiassa: Some parents are willfully, even belligerently indifferent.Is this indifference a factor in the present case? Nine teenagers are charged with bullying a girl to death; I find it hard to believe their parents were completely clueless. To draw an extreme comparison, one might look to Columbine and wonder how it is that a Jewish parent wouldn't be at least somewhat aware that her son was a raging anti-Semite.

True some parent are indifferent but it doesn't necessarily mean that their children will turn into delinquents which would bring up the question of whether it is indeed a fact that bad parenting leads to bad children. There are a plenty of examples of children who come from bad homes but turn into good human beings who do their best not to harm others, you could probably also find siblings from those same families that will turn out delinquent. The boys in the Columbine case were later deemed suffering from psychopathy and that they were the bullies but psychopathy is something that no parent can induce in a child, its simply part of who they were from birth. What the anti-semitism has to do with it is I cannot fathom as it assumes that a parent can control the belief system of their children and we know that at a certain age that is no longer possible.

What of Jeffery Dahmer? He had normal loving parents. Check this out:

His father, Lionel Dahmer, wrote a very sad and poignant book called A Father's Story, which explores the very common phenomenon of a parents trying desperately to give their child a good upbringing and discovering to their horror that their child has built a high wall around himself from which their influence is progressively shut out. While fortunately, most parents do not have a Jeffrey Dahmer to raise, too many have seen their children succumb to drugs, alcohol, crime despite their very best and often frantic efforts to intervene.

"It is a portrayal of parental dread... the terrible sense that your child has slipped beyond your grasp, that your little boy is spinning in the void, swirling in the maelstrom, lost, lost, lost."

Lionel seems to be fairly straightforward in recognizing the negative influences in Jeff's life. No family is perfect. Jeff's mother had various physical ailments and appeared to be high strung, coming from a background in which her father's alcoholism deeply affected her life.

Lionel, a chemist who went on to get his Ph.D., stayed at work more often than he should to avoid turmoil on the home front. Eventually, the marriage dissolved in divorce when Jeff was eighteen. However, none of this commonplace domestic discord accounts for serial murder, necrophilia, etc.

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/notorious/dahmer/why_4.html

Its way too easy to blame the parents and say that whatever their children do or however they turn out is directly influenced by parenting. Sure childhood experiences help mold the individual but so does environment and its easy for very young people to completely lose their moral grounding while in groups. A child who comes from a 'normal' family can indeed engage in tormenting another child without their parents having a clue it occurred or that is even a trait that will emerge under certain conditions.

There is no formula that if followed will ensure 'good' children.

 

[Asguard]

It's a matter of jurisdiction. I haven't found those statutes in the MGLs, but I'm sure they're there. However, comparatively, the statutory charge is probably the best one to go with. Barring an extraordinary cockup by the prosecutors, it should be a fairly easy charge to prove, require an insane jury to acquit, and expose the perpetrators to a life sentence. Considering what scant facts we have at hand about the bullying, that's the charge I'd go with if I was the prosecutor.

Also, though, one of the aspects of bullying and the law I hope to explore in this thread is the question of why a bullying statute when there are things like assault, civil rights, and sex offense to be applied. Not that I object to bullying statutes in principle, but they can easily fall astray.

thats fine in this case but do you really want to see 18 year olds sentanced to life because there GF\BF's (17 and 9 months) parents took a dislike to his\her sexual partner? That would be the precident set by using the stat rape laws here

 

[mordea]

You ought to try something more than self-contradicting contrarianism reminiscent of a frustrated teenager.

There is no self-contradiction here. Only your blatant inability to respond to what is actually being said. I guess it is easier to rebutt misrepresentations and distortions.

Innocence until proven guilty is vital, indeed,

Indeed.

but you do yourself no credit by turning around and so casually diagnosing the problem.

Mental illness is universally regarded as the cause of the overwhelming majority of suicides. So it is not fallacious for me to say that this girl likely had an underlying mental illness. It's a valid argument made from probability.

One need not "force" another to commit suicide.

Indeed. So either the girl chose to take her own life, or her underlying mental illness compelled her to do so. Or perhaps a mixture of the two. Those who bullied her cannot be held accountable.

Calculated cruelty intending a bad outcome cannot be excused if that outcome is worse than one is willing to admit pursuing.

Yet you have no concrete evidence that the suicide was a result of the purported abuse. All you have is supposition.

Then again, that's why the defendants are being charged with statutory rape and bodily harm.

Which is fair. One is responsible for what they do, not what others do.

 

[Tiassa]

Off target

The boys in the Columbine case were later deemed suffering from psychopathy and that they were the bullies. What the anti-semitism has to do with it is irrelevant I believe as it assumes that a parent can control the belief system of their children and we know that at a certain age that is no longer possible.

It is my understanding that one of the Columbine shooters was a natural psychopath; the other was a disaffected kid in his thrall. (I picked that up from Columbine author Dave Cullen on NPR last year. Sorry I can't be more specific.)

And the point of noting the anti-Semitism is found in the sentence that precedes it. I find it hard to believe their parents were completely clueless. It is not about controlling her son's beliefs, but the fact that she was so unaware.

Its way too easy to blame the parents and say that whatever their children do or however they turn out is directly influenced by parenting.

It's also way too easy to make excuses for them. If I watch Court TV at all in the next year or so, it will be to see this trial if it's aired. I want to see those parents on the stand, telling us what they knew.

And as a related issue, I would note that I find your selective redefinition odd, to say the least. As I said, part of this investigation should focus on whether or not the parents of the accused should be charged. The question exists. It is important. That is no reason to not investigate it.

I want the question asked. You, however, seem to argue the parents should be spared the scrutiny.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

They cannot be spared scrutiny, anytime something like this happens the parents are always in the limelight. I am saying that in order to charge them you have to prove that they knew the extent of the child's involvement or prove that they even knew (like the school calling and complaining or something like that). Also the defense will argue that their is no proof that parenting can prevent children from behaving like delinquents and they would be correct. If this is the case then any time a child goes out and breaks the law then it is their parents fault due to bad parenting and that isn't always the case.

I am not making excuses for the parents as there are nine children involved and we know nothing of their home life.

 

[Tiassa]

A minor point

I am saying that in order to charge them you have to prove that they knew the extent of the child's involvement or prove that they even knew (like the school calling and complaining or something like that).

The only point with that I would pick is that parents don't need to know that their kids are delinquents before they are held responsible for the child's vandalism or wild party.

Did you ever see a sentencing hearing where the convict's mother, or wife, or whoever, stands up and tells the court how good a person he is?

I always wonder about that. Not that I don't wonder about victims, either. Indeed, it was a victim who first put me onto the question when I was fifteen.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

The only point with that I would pick is that parents don't need to know that their kids are delinquents before they are held responsible for the child's vandalism or wild party.

Did you ever see a sentencing hearing where the convict's mother, or wife, or whoever, stands up and tells the court how good a person he is?

I always wonder about that. Not that I don't wonder about victims, either. Indeed, it was a victim who first put me onto the question when I was fifteen.

So then if a child leaves home and goes out, gets into a fight and kills someone its the fault of the parent?

Well there is always surprise when someone you know does something criminal and yes its common for people to say that the person was a good person. Look at the people who worked with Dahmer, they said he was quiet, nice, respectful etc.

Ever see the documentary Deliver Us From Evil? Well there is a family who knew Father Grady for 20 years. He stayed at their home, performed first communion for their daughter etc. Well when he was first accused of being a pedophile they didn't believe it. They defended him until they found out that he had abused their daughter under their own roof. She told them only when they told her of the accusations and the daughter by then was already 40 years old. She was afraid to tell anyone out of shame and god only knows what else. It was devastating precisely because he, from everything they had directly experienced, seemed like a 'good' person.

 

[Tiassa]

Small differences perhaps, but large effects and implications

So then if a child leaves home and goes out, gets into a fight and kills someone its the fault of the parent?

To the one, you're overstating parental culpability.

To the other, that would depend on how a given statute in a given jurisdiction is written.

Well there is always surprise when someone you know does something criminal and yes its common for people to say that the person was a good person. Look at the people who worked with Dahmer, they said he was quiet, nice, respectful etc.

And lots of people were surprised when the Task Force finally hauled in Ridgway.

But there is a difference in how we view and assess our children as compared to our coworkers and neighbors. Or priests.

Ever see the documentary Deliver Us From Evil? Well there is a family who knew Father Grady for 20 years. He stayed at their home, performed first communion for their daughter etc. Well when he was first accused of being a pedophile they didn't believe it. They defended him until they found out that he had abused their daughter under their own roof. She told them only when they told her of the accusations and the daughter by then was already 40 years old. She was afraid to tell anyone out of shame and god only knows what else. It was devastating precisely because he, from everything they had directly experienced, seemed like a 'good' person.

I don't know where to start. I mean, familial relationships versus God? And I don't think the parent's relationship to the child is the functional equivalent of a parishioner's relationship to the priest.

I'm talking about a parent and a child. The things I know about my seven year-old daughter would embarrass the hell out of her if she was a teenager. I notice small changes in her attitude, posture, and conduct. That's my job. That's part of what a parent does. I notice when she uses different words and phrases. I notice when her musical repertoire changes. I notice when the color schemes in her drawings change. This is all part of what a parent does. It is my job. And by no measure can I be called the Best Father In The World. Or even Bothell. Hell, probably not even this pathetic apartment complex we live in right now. But I know the patterns of her sexual development. I know when she needs to pee, well before the dance starts or she bolts to the bathroom. I know when the kids at school are being mean. I know when she's sick of me. I know when she's frustrated with her mother. She doesn't need to say any of this explicitly. Knowing these things are part of what a parent does. It is our jobs to know these things.

So, yes, if my daughter starts developing that manner of cruelty, I will notice. I'm her father. It's my job to notice.

And God help me if I ever get to know a local priest so intimately, eh?

It's a simple matter of relationship dynamics. The child follows the parent. The parent follows the priest. Where authority rests is a fundamental component in describing how any given human relationship functions.

 

[Bells]

thats fine in this case but do you really want to see 18 year olds sentanced to life because there GF\BF's (17 and 9 months) parents took a dislike to his\her sexual partner? That would be the precident set by using the stat rape laws here

Ermm Asguard, this isn't because the parents did not like their daughter's sexual partners. Let me quote this again:

"The investigation revealed relentless activity directed toward Phoebe designed to humiliate her and to make it impossible for her to remain at school."

Now do you get it why they had sex with her?

The 2 boys being charged with statutory rape had sex with her because they wanted to "humiliate her and make it impossible for her to remain at school".. ie, it was a concerted effort by the boys and others to ensure she was humiliated and sex was but one tool available to them in that regard.

Mental illness is universally regarded as the cause of the overwhelming majority of suicides. So it is not fallacious for me to say that this girl likely had an underlying mental illness. It's a valid argument made from probability.

Quite so. But if she was mentally ill at the time she committed suicide, what led to that mental illness? What led to her depression?

What if she was not a depressed girl prior to getting to that school and prior to becoming a victim of the systematic bullying she was subjected to? What if, the actions of those teenagers, led her to her mental illness and subsequent suicide?

Indeed. So either the girl chose to take her own life, or her underlying mental illness compelled her to do so. Or perhaps a mixture of the two. Those who bullied her cannot be held accountable.

Why shouldn't they be?

Are you saying that people who bully someone to suicide, whether that individual is mentally ill or not, should not be held responsible for their actions? Are you saying that their continuous abuse, and yes, bullying is abuse, is not an underlying factor to her suicide? Do you have proof that it is not? The experts who have investigated this case before pressing charges seem to think it was directly linked to her killing herself. So why do you think that driving someone to suicide is not a crime or should not be a crime?

What if it was an adult who was abusing a child until that child ultimately ended their own life? Should that adult be held responsible for their actions? Why the different standards here?

Yet you have no concrete evidence that the suicide was a result of the purported abuse. All you have is supposition.

You are declaring her mentally ill. You are saying the experts who have investigated this case are wrong. Do you have proof of your assertions? Or are yours suppositions? Tiassa is quoting directly from those who completed the investigations. Where are you getting your information about this particular girl from?

Which is fair. One is responsible for what they do, not what others do.

Indeed. But if what you do is so bad that it leads others to kill themselves, then you should be held responsible for your actions.

For example, lets say you are in a crowded theater and you set off the fire alarm with a cigarette lighter and scream out fire. Should you be held responsible for people being trampled to death as they attempt to escape out of the theater? Or are you somehow not responsible for people running for their lives because of your actions?

 

[Asguard]

Yes bells, that is whats aleged IN THIS CASE. What i said was DO YOU WANT LIFE TO BECOME THE STOCK STANDED PENELTY FOR THAT CRIME. Look at another example, say a group of bank robbers were caught and the police thought the easiest crime to charge them with was illegal parking. Should the penelty for the crime of illegal parking then be set to a level acceptable for bank robbery so that they could use it to catch them and then have that aplied to everyone who commits illegal parking? HELL NO. This is no different, yes these kids might well deserve life if its proven BUT if that is used then what happens when the next case comes along where it IS consentual sex between a 17 and 9 month old and an 18 year old? will they then deserve life too?

 

[Asguard]

mordea

you take your victoms as you find them. Im sure this came up in another thread not that long ago. If you push someone on the stairs and they fall in front of a train you cant argue that "they wouldnt have fallen if they hadnt have had parkenson's disease", thats just too bad, you should have thought about that before you pushed them. This is the same, maybe she was depressed before hand, maybe she wasnt, it doesnt matter. They pushed her till she died and they are responcable for that (allegedly)

 

[visceral_instinct]

I disagree. Being an ass isn't illegal. Maybe you can charge them with stalking, but not for her death. She murdered herself.
If I tell draqon he has a small penis, is ugly, and doesn't make enough money for me to date and he kills himself because of the harsh rejection, should I be held responsible for his death? :shrug:

What they did was a LOT worse than just being asses. ONE piece of verbal disrespect is not comparable to the ongoing ordeal she went through, and the physical and sexual assault.

 

[GeoffP]

Why a special law for bullying? Criminal harassment would seem more than sufficient.

Although I disagree strongly with String that caning the offenders is the solution. This seems shocking to me.

What would be far more appropriate is for each of them receive a good, arms-held-behind-the-back punch in the face from a 250-lb biker. Then a little stockade time, by a barrel or two of rotting fruit. Then electroshock. Not for correction, but just because.

 

[Tiassa]

head vs. wall

There is no self-contradiction here. Only your blatant inability to respond to what is actually being said. I guess it is easier to rebutt misrepresentations and distortions.

Let us compare two of your statements drawn from the same post:

On characterizing the actions of the accused:

"Speculation. Ever hear of the concept 'innocent until proven guilty'?"​

On holding bullies accountable:

"Why? They didn't force her to commit suicide. She likely killed herself due to underlying illness, which may or may not have been exacerbated by the bullying."​

There is an obvious dissonance here. The way the Massachusetts laws are written, it appears the only way out of the statutory rape conviction is if the accused didn't actually have any sexual contact with the girl. Charging them, as such, would thus qualify as what I referred to as an "extraordinary cockup by the prosecutors".

Splitting hairs, yes, Bells jumped the gun. But making that point and then turning around to speculate about why Phoebe Prince hung herself just doesn't work. Which brings us to:

Mental illness is universally regarded as the cause of the overwhelming majority of suicides. So it is not fallacious for me to say that this girl likely had an underlying mental illness. It's a valid argument made from probability.

Few of those suicides occur randomly, or simply within the context of being depressed or otherwise mentally ill. Generally speaking, a specific stressor triggers the devolution toward self-destruction. Because one might suffer a chronic mental illness does not excuse willful conduct that agitates the condition. Had Ms. Prince taken her own life because, say, a boy she liked didn't want to go to the dance with her, the focus would indeed settle on mental illness. However, the reason prosecutors are going forward at this time is their perception—as a result of investigation—of the extraordinary vice of the persecution she suffered:

"It appears that Phoebe's death on January 14 followed a torturous day for her when she was subjected to verbal harassment and physical abuse," [prosecutor] Scheibel said.

Earlier that day, Phoebe had been harassed as she studied in the library at South Hadley High School, apparently in the presence of a faculty member and several students, none of whom reported it until after the girl's death, Scheibel said.

Phoebe, who had recently moved to the area with her family from Ireland, also was harassed as she walked through the halls of the school that day and as she walked on the street toward her home, the prosecutor said.

The harassment that day, by one male and two females, "appears to have been motivated by the group's displeasure with Phoebe's brief dating relationship with a male student that had ended six weeks earlier," she said.

But that day's events were not isolated; they "were the culmination of a nearly three-month campaign of verbally abusive, assaultive behavior and threats of physical harm toward Phoebe on school grounds by several South Hadley students," Scheibel added.

"Their conduct far exceeded the limits of normal teenage relationship-related quarrels. The investigation revealed relentless activity directed toward Phoebe designed to humiliate her and to make it impossible for her to remain at school."

(CNN, boldface accent added)​

These were extraordinary circumstances. Your general observation is insufficient.

Indeed. So either the girl chose to take her own life, or her underlying mental illness compelled her to do so. Or perhaps a mixture of the two. Those who bullied her cannot be held accountable.

What stressor would you allege triggered the suicide, then? Just random depression? Absurd rebellion?

Yet you have no concrete evidence that the suicide was a result of the purported abuse. All you have is supposition.

We'll see what a jury thinks, and what these defendants have to say for themselves. As stressors go, consistent assault and harassment seems pretty obvious.

Which is fair. One is responsible for what they do, not what others do.

If, as you theorize, the real culprit is mental illness, the bullies are still culpable. Exploitation and inflammation of mental illness is repugnant.

If you hire a killer, you are held accountable for the murder, instead of just giving someone money. If you cause a panic by shouting, "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, you are held accountable for the injuries and deaths that occur as people trample their way out. American jurisprudence is rife with precedents for holding people responsible for actions they incited of others. The question of bullying is another valence of that issue, which our society is now undertaking. There is no firm resolution to the general proposition yet.
____________________

Notes:

AllPsych. Psychology Dictionary. AllPsych Online. 2004. AllPsych.com. March 31, 2010. http://allpsych.com/dictionary/index.html

Cable News Network. "More students disciplined following girl's suicide". March 31, 2010. Edition.CNN.com. March 31, 2010. http://edition.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/30/massachusetts.bullying.suicide/index.html

 

[Orleander]

What they did was a LOT worse than just being asses. ONE piece of verbal disrespect is not comparable to the ongoing ordeal she went through, and the physical and sexual assault.

That's not bullying. Its physical and sexual assault. If my husband hit me every day he wouldn't be charged with bullying, he would be charged for assaulting me.

Are these kids being charged with her suicide or are they being charged with the crimes they committed during her bullying?

 

[mordea]

Let us compare two of your statements drawn from the same post:

On characterizing the actions of the accused:

"Speculation. Ever hear of the concept 'innocent until proven guilty'?"​

On holding bullies accountable:

"Why? They didn't force her to commit suicide. She likely killed herself due to underlying illness, which may or may not have been exacerbated by the bullying."​

There is an obvious dissonance here.

Not at all. You have missed (selectively ignored?) a key term. "Likely". I am making no claim of certainty. However, when arguing from probability, it is highly likely that this girl had some sort of underlying illness at the time she committed suicide. Very few people commit suicide without having some sort of mental disorder first (ie. suicide is a *complication* of unmanaged certain unmanaged mental disorders).

Splitting hairs, yes, Bells jumped the gun. But making that point and then turning around to speculate about why Phoebe Prince hung herself just doesn't work.

I'm offering up alternative explainations as to why this girl may have killed herself. I don't need to prove my alternatives, as Bell's explaination is also merely based on supposition. All I need is plausibility.

Few of those suicides occur randomly, or simply within the context of being depressed or otherwise mentally ill. Generally speaking, a specific stressor triggers the devolution toward self-destruction.

Speculation. And even if someone with depression does kill themselves in response to a stressor, that does not make any individual who applied that stressor responsible for the outcome.

Because one might suffer a chronic mental illness does not excuse willful conduct that agitates the condition.

First, you'd need to prove that the supposed conduct agitated the condition. Secondly, you'd need to explain why an individual should be responsible for how others interpret and react to certain actions.

For example, let us say that I suffer chronic clinical depression, and my girlfriend chooses to break up with me. In response to this stressor, I take my own life. According to your logic, my girlfriend (who applied the stressor which agitated the condition) should be held liable for my suicide, as she exacerbated my mental illness.

Such implications are downright scary. Anyone who does not handle depressed individuals with kids gloves could be held liable for their suicide.

Had Ms. Prince taken her own life because, say, a boy she liked didn't want to go to the dance with her, the focus would indeed settle on mental illness.

Why is mental illness only worth considering in that scenario?

However, the reason prosecutors are going forward at this time is their perception—as a result of investigation—of the extraordinary vice of the persecution she suffered:

And yet many people who suffer persecution do not resort to suicide.

These were extraordinary circumstances.

That's debatable. We aren't even aware as to exactly what happened.

What stressor would you allege triggered the suicide, then? Just random depression?

Random depression could indeed cause suicide. Furthermore, *any* stressor could cause suicide. To the depressed mind, even minor stressors (such as saying stupid in public) could be blown out of proportion and used as a justification for suicide. Depressed people don't think rationally when they are having an episode.

 

[mordea]

Quite so. But if she was mentally ill at the time she committed suicide, what led to that mental illness? What led to her depression?

I don't know. It may be intrinsic factors, or external factors.

What if she was not a depressed girl prior to getting to that school and prior to becoming a victim of the systematic bullying she was subjected to? What if, the actions of those teenagers, led her to her mental illness and subsequent suicide?

Good luck establishing a causal link. The fact that there are so many 'what if's' in this case is why I'm surprised so many people are jumping to conclusions. The responses on this thread are very knee-jerk.

Why shouldn't they be?

Are you saying that people who bully someone to suicide,

You're assuming that someone can be bullied to suicide. Furthermore, you're speculating that that is what happened in this case.

whether that individual is mentally ill or not, should not be held responsible for their actions?

They should be held responsible for their actions. However, taking one's life is either a choice, or the consequence of inadequately managed mental illness.

Are you saying that their continuous abuse, and yes, bullying is abuse, is not an underlying factor to her suicide?

It may have been a stressor. But as I pointed out that Tiassa, almost anything could be a stressor to the depressed mind. Had this girl been dumped on the day she had committed suicide, would you have blamed the boyfriend for her death?

Do you have proof that it is not?

No. But I'm not the one making assertions of fact. He who asserts must prove.

The experts who have investigated this case before pressing charges seem to think it was directly linked to her killing herself.

'Experts' 'Think'. In otherwords, more supposition. A Phd does make personal opinion more than just that, an opinion.

So why do you think that driving someone to suicide is not a crime or should not be a crime?

Because I question the entire concept of 'driving' someone to suicide. Either suicide is a choice made by the individual, or it is the result of some mental illness outside of their control. As such, people who were 'mean' can't be held responsible.

What if it was an adult who was abusing a child until that child ultimately ended their own life?
Should that adult be held responsible for their actions? Why the different standards here?

The adult should be held responsible for the abuse. Not the suicide.

You are declaring her mentally ill.

No, I am not. I am saying that when arguing from probability, it is reasonable to assume that she likely had a mental illness. People rarely commit suicide without first having developed mental illness.

You are saying the experts who have investigated this case are wrong.

Shit is shit, whether it comes from an expert or a country hick. I have a brain and I'm not illiterate. I don't need to be told how to interpret events by others.

Do you have proof of your assertions?

Which ones?

Or are yours suppositions?

No. My statements reveal the supposed factual statements of others as mere supposition.

Tiassa is quoting directly from those who completed the investigations.

He's quoting the opinions of others. May I re-iterate: The opinions.

Where are you getting your information about this particular girl from?

From the articles cited.

For example, lets say you are in a crowded theater and you set off the fire alarm with a cigarette lighter and scream out fire. Should you be held responsible for people being trampled to death as they attempt to escape out of the theater?

No. Unless there are only two choices: Stay in the theatre and risk one's life, or trample others. However, such a thing is rarely true. It is quite possible to evacuate a theatre without crushing someone's skull under your shoe.

 

[James R]

A Phd does make personal opinion more than just that, an opinion.

So you don't believe that PhDs have any expertise worth listening to?

Interesting.

Tell me: would you rather have your broken car repaired by a trained repairman, or just a random person plucked off the street? Because the repairman's opinion of what might be wrong and how to fix the problem is just one more opinion, according to you. Right?