Slashdot Mirror
Lori Drew Cyber-Bullying Trial Begins
An anonymous reader writes "The cyber-bullying trial of Lori Drew opened yesterday. She was indicted for conspiring to access and accessing MySpace illegally in order to 'further a tortious act, namely, intentional infliction of emotional distress' (PDF of the indictment). The BBC has background on the case, the NYTimes covers the opening statements, and Wired has today's testimony."
Actually I think you could make a good case for whoever was at the keyboard being an accessory to the crime of suicide. One of the rare justifications for making suicide illegal.
Hmm, I wonder if Ms. Drew could be considered to be legally insane. She does seem incapable of telling right from wrong, but I don't know if this behavior is grounds for institutionalization. Maybe just de-internet-access-ization.
On the one hand, the federal case is rubbish. Intentionally inflicting emotional distress is so subjective of an offense as to be unconstitutional (judges have used vagueness as a reason to strike down statutes). This case is now clearly entirely one of catharsis for the community and a career opportunity for ambitious prosecutors.
Yet, I think there can be a case under state law that Lori Drew murdered Megan Meier. I looked it up before, and remember seeing that it said that if you knowingly cause someone to be killed, then you are guilty of murder, and that's a good definition of what Drew did here. With basically demonic-level of malice of forethought, prodded and goaded this girl into exposing herself emotionally to a fictitious lover, knowing full-well that she had some severe issues with depression, and then she stabbed the girl and butterflied the wound.
It's no wonder why Meier committed suicide. On some level, Drew knew what she was doing. It's already been established in previous reports that she knew all about this girl's psychological problems, and her reported behavior is that of a true predator. She can't claim innocence like "gee golly, I didn't know she very well might kill herself if I set her up for that much anguish and suggested to her that the world might be better off with out her (which Drew did suggest to her)."
Personally, I would like to have seen a state prosecutor charge her with at least second degree murder because it's a very reasonable conclusion from the evidence that Meier wouldn't have committed suicide had Drew not done what she did, and Drew had a reasonable basis to know that her actions would lead to the girl's suicide.
You people think that all triggers affect one equally; from experience, they don't.
Certain people are *far* more prone to affect by social triggers (such as bullying) than others. People who lead otherwise perfectly happy lives can easily become suicidal over constant bullying.
So, until you've been in this situation, fuck off. You obviously have no god damn clue as to what's going on.
There is no crime there.
It's wrong, but what law did she break?
Of course
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You jest, but leadership is what sociopaths are for.
A sociopath (aka psychopath) lacks any empathy, and is only vaguely aware of long-term consequences. They are also very highly skilled at manipulation. This makes them ideal leaders in the face of an ill-willed adversary. Unfortunately, they hurt everyone they come in contact with, so outside of a leadership job they are loathsome. I have one in the office next door to mine, and the world would be a better place if she were to depart it.
The rate at which mother nature presents us with sociopaths -- from 1% to 5%, it's hard to tell -- indicates the historical size of our tribes, assuming each tribe needs one sociopathic leader. If the birth rate of sociopaths is 2%, then our average tribe size throughout our history is 50.
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
a police state exerts the will of a political agenda
here we are talking about an affront to basic moral sensibility
complete, utterly, totally fucking unrelated things
furthermore, a law is not a piece of comptuer code, it is made to be interpreted by human beings. a law can be stretched to an extreme, sure, but if it is done in the service of justice, which this case obviously cries out for, then the law is still doing the job it was intended to do
you have this really strange notion of what a law is and its purpose in society. its not a static dead lifeless piece of computer code, its inhabited by, and enforced by, human beings, for the benefit of human beings. what this woman did is an affront on any common sense understanding of right and wrong, and as such, the law is completely appropriate to be used as humanity sees fit to punish this reprehensible person
it doesn't fit the mold of a law exactly? who fucking care? you honestly think that doesn't happen every day when any law is enforced?
ALL laws are interpretted in every single case ever put forth before a court, and ALL cases set forth before a court differ in the particulars and stray from a technical reading of the law.
but if we abide by your mediocre interpretation of what a law is and what it is meant for, just because a case is a little complicated, you are perfectly willing to completely ignore justice
your approach is a path to the breakdown of law and order in society. the courts serves the people in society, and if the people in society see that its laws are not being used in the pursuit of justice, and that instead truly reprehensible people are allowed off on technicalities, they will cease to believe in their courts, and take matters into their own hands, to see tha tjustice is done. and of course, vigiliatism is wrose, but this is exactly what your attitude encourages: a mediocre approach to legality and morality, a complete separation of the two. incredibly stupid
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I agree 100%. This case is indeed a complete outlier, but it is precisely because of the context that the criminal law doesn't really apply. (Full disclosure: I am a lawyer.)
I have no doubt that the parents would have a pretty good tort case here. Wrongful death seems like a good way to go. But there was no murder (despite a lot of comments here to the effect that there was). The girl committed suicide--she ended her life, in the ultimate legal sense, by her own action. Imposing criminal responsibility on a woman whose reprehensible conduct undoubtedly pushed Megan Meiers further in that direction than she would otherwise have gone--but who did not swing a knife, fire a gun, or directly solicit someone else to do the same--would mean taking the criminal law out into very murky waters.
I don't see that expecting adults to conform to socially expected and well-communicated standards of decency, particularly in regards to minors, should be considered "expecting the world to conform to their tender needs." It is, rather, expecting the world you live in to conform to its own stated standards and expecting society to force out of compliance members back into something resembling acceptable behaviour, or remove them from that society.
And yes, my statement here can be twisted to imply that I personally believe any number of unpleasant things. I fully expect that someone in this society will choose to use my statement in such a manner.
Uh, "if it looks roughly mouse-shaped according to my infra-red sensitive pit, eat it"? --Chris Burke 09-08-10
I know I've long since learned, anything that can be abused, will be abused eventually
To make an analogy for /.:
Most programmers make mistakes
Most groups of programmers make mistakes (no matter how big your group is)
These mistakes do get abused eventually. The problem is that there is no one doing 'sanity' tests on these laws and attempting to abuse them before they get made, while we have companies who do 'sanity' tests with QA and hired security consultants.
You are right, we need more sanity checks, especially for things like laws, the controlling factor of society.
Disclaimer: I am not god.
We may not be created equal
But we can be treated equal.
They are only trying to do this route because there is NO law on the books against what she did. And allowing them to bend this law to get her would set an ominous precedent.
Are we sure about that?
I know in Canada we have a "sexual interference with a minor" law, maybe Missouri has something applicable. She certainly carried on a courtship with the girl. And it's pretty obvious that Megan was interested romantically. as well, one of the topics of discussion was sex.
If Lori Drew were a guy (other than a congressman, of course), I have little doubt he'd be in jail now, and on a sex-offender registry as well. I agree that the statutes they are using are rubbish, but I wouldn't be surprised if some sex-crime statute has been violated.
At the risk of having a "what about the children" moment... The amount of callous comments here are ridiculous (not directed at P). An adult psychologically manipulated and abused a kid, and it gets responded to by blaming the kid ("she would have done it anyways..." etc.).
Also like convicts, the students are not allowed recording devices to document bullying because recording devices are disruptive. I'm still unclear how bullying is unbelievable but retaliation is intolerable.
Is the question of whether or not it is okay to kill anything other than a moral question?
Legislation against murder is not purely moral, as killing someone definitely infringes on their right to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
For example, prostitution laws. Or how about laws against consensual oral and/or anal sex that exist in some States?/p>
These are state laws and as such are a reflection of the local constituency's beliefs, although it could be argued that there are medical reasons for such legislation, and not simply prudish ones.
Or, to delve into an issue of contemporary civil law, how about the law preventing people from marrying members of the same sex?
My interpretation of those statutes is that they are for tax purposes, since civil unions are not prohibited, but the tax benefitting status of marriage is, which should be reserved for a family unit capable of reproduction, as the tax benefits are intended to support a continuance of the species.
The primary difference between this case and the examples you provided is that her actions were specifically directed at the victim with the intention of harming said victim. And she succeeded in doing just that.
That is a good point, one I must concede to you, although without reading the messages in question I would not be able to say whether or not suicide was the intended outcome of the emotional harm. My attempt at allegory was inappropriate to this situation.
Ignorance is Bliss -- And the Opposite is True -- Genius is Madness