In Theory: Did a teen help another commit suicide?

Michelle Carter, 18, is facing an involuntary manslaughter charge in Bristol County, Mass. for allegedly encouraging her friend, Conrad Roy, to kill himself last summer.

Prosecutors say Roy, 18, was vulnerable, having expressed a desire to kill himself several times. The two had developed a romantic relationship via the Internet and phone.

Roy was found dead from carbon monoxide poisoning in his truck on July 13, 2014.

Prosecutors pointed to Carter’s text to Roy, telling him to stay in his truck as the poisonous fumes began to enter. They also cited her prior text messages: “You’re finally going to be happy in heaven. No more pain” and “You have to just do it. … Tonight is the night. It’s now or never.”

Carter’s defense team has argued that Roy is ultimately responsible for his death as Carter took no physical action and that her text messages are protected by the 1st Amendment.

Q: What do you think? Is Carter responsible for Roy’s death?

--

No, Carter is not legally responsible, and I do believe that this case is a freedom of speech issue.

Now, having said that, I would like to know how Carter thinks. Certainly she should spend no time in jail, but doesn’t she have just a little remorse? If she and the dead guy had had a romantic relationship, didn’t she feel just a little twinge in greasing the skids for him to take his own life?

Again, what Carter did is not a prosecutable offense — but as St. Paul says in one of the New Testament books, “All things are lawful but not all things are helpful.”

There may be another side in this story: maybe Carter really believed that this guy wanted to kill himself, and her “love” for him may have consisted in helping him do what he really wanted to do. But still … not even a twinge of sorrow on Carter’s part? That’s the sad part.

The Rev. Skip Lindeman
La Cañada Congregational Church
La Cañada Flintridge

--

Maybe. I looked it up on FindLaw.com, and it said, “Three elements must be satisfied in order for someone to be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter:

1. Someone was killed as a result of the act by the defendant.

2. The act either was inherently dangerous to others or done with reckless disregard for human life.

3. The defendant knew or should have known his or her conduct was a threat to the lives of others.”

Carter showed a pretty reckless disregard for Roy’s life, and she must have known that her words were “inherently dangerous” to him and a threat to his life.

Probably this should be filed under tragedy rather than crime, though. However utterly wrong we recognize her encouragement to be, some part of its tone sounds typical-teen-ish; a very misguided attempt to offer genuine support and loyalty — as only teenagers can go over the top, and way wrong, in showing loyalty to each other. Certainly it sounds as if Carter adds to that element of teen loyalty a measure of mental turmoil all her own; she clearly needs psychological help, as did he.

There are a whole host of things in this world that, while not illegal, are wrong. And a whole host of those things fall under the category of “am I my neighbor’s keeper?” (Cain, after murdering Abel; Genesis 4:9). And the answer is: Yes. You are. We are responsible for one another, both duty- and conscience-bound to look out for one another’s welfare. Even when the law doesn’t dictate it, human decency demands it.

Whether or not Carter’s words and actions were illegal, they were a crime against human decency, and evidence of a total lack of conscience — with terrible, terrible consequences.

The Rev. Amy Pringle
St. George’s Episcopal Church
La Cañada Flintridge

--

In Genesis 4:1-15 we find the story of Cain killing his brother Abel. After Abel’s death, God asked Cain, “Where is Abel your brother?” And he (Cain) said, “I do not know. Am I my brother’s keeper?” And He (God) said, “What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground.”

I believe we are to be responsible for how we interact with and influence others. We live in a time when people do not want to be held responsible for their actions, and do not want to pay the consequences for their behavior and words. It seems clear to me that Michelle influenced Conrad in his decision. If our court system allows society to be free from the effects of their influence, we are encouraging irresponsible behavior.

Conrad is also responsible for his decisions and actions, and unfortunately suffered the consequences of his decision to end his life. Young people during every season of history seem to be influenced by pressure from their peers. No matter what we say, there will always be those who fall prey to the pressures of others. And adults are also vulnerable to pressure from others as well.

It appears that Conrad suffered from depression and may have slipped through the cracks of being provided with helpful counsel and support, although he may have been receiving support, but still decided to end his life.

I think both Michelle and Conrad are jointly responsible for their individual roles in this unfortunate tragedy. Today parents, family members and friends need to care for one another and provide the support we all need to enjoy successful lives. Reach out to someone in need and encourage them today!

Pastor Terry Neven
Montrose Community Church
La Crescenta-Montrose

--

Michelle Carter is most certainly culpable and should be punished and made to feel the disgust of her community. What she did is tantamount to shouting for a distraught jumper to plunge to his death. Such cases have actually occurred with people filming and posting online.

Suicide is essentially self-murder, and anyone who would encourage another human-being to destroy themselves is reprehensible, and yet we live in an age where people are arguing for assisted suicide and the right to die. If we hold this woman to account, then it will likely cause an uncomfortable ripple across lines that some politicos favor.

Jesus said: “Things that cause people to stumble are bound to come, but woe to anyone through whom they come” (Luke 17:1). Here was a man stumbling in despair, and he wasn’t encouraged to live life and to recognize his own value before God. No, he was provoked to do something that was no comfort at all; something that was terribly worse. Scripture says that “Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death” (2 Co 7:10). Death is no friend. Death is a foe: “The last enemy to be destroyed is death” (1Co 15:26). And yet here’s false assurance of heaven given to a man who feels he has no hope left. When Judas regretted his own crime against Christ, he hanged himself. He went to Hell. His act was not repentance, it resulted from guilty despair. I am not saying that some person of genuine faith could not find themselves in such darkness that they commit suicide and so disqualify themselves from Paradise, it’s just that Christians know that even in the “valley of the shadow of death,” God is there. In such circumstances, the Church community, the real friends and family of a depressed person, will rally to exalt life, to encourage the person, and to intervene to save him. They don’t encourage death, as if that’s any kind of happy alternative to living the life God assigns.

In some places it’s criminal to stand by and do nothing when there exists the capacity to lend aid to a victim. Here is someone who actively joined in the victimization. Should we all stand by now and excuse her?

Rev. Bryan A. Griem
Tujunga

--

Massachusetts courts will decide whether Michelle Carter, a 17-year-old at her arrest, is guilty of involuntary manslaughter, defined as “recklessly causing the death of another.” Intent to kill does not have to be proven, and she can be sentenced to up to 20 years in prison if convicted.

Her defense claims that she provided “no material assistance” to Conrad Roy in killing himself, but to me proving causation shouldn’t be tough — she suggested the suicide method to him and directed him to websites for information on how to rig up the car exhaust. She told him to stay in his truck when he said the fumes were starting to overcome him.

I think the 1st amendment defense is especially weak — free speech rights do not protect you from the consequences of your speech.

Yes, Roy was a free agent, not forced to obey her, but I think she bears moral responsibility for his death, and that her actions show that she is horribly flawed, mentally and emotionally. She can spend the long stretch of time that I predict she will soon have on her hands becoming a better human being.

Roberta Medford
Atheist
Montrose