Former Nurse Charged With Aiding Suicides Via Web

mernil writes "A former US nurse has been charged with two counts of aiding suicides on the Internet, US officials say. William Melchert-Dinkel, 47, is accused of encouraging the suicides of Mark Drybrough from Coventry, UK, in 2005 and Canada's Nadia Kajouji in 2008. Melchert-Dinkel, from Minnesota, allegedly posed as a female nurse, instructing people in suicide chatrooms how to take their lives. He reportedly admitted helping five or fewer people kill themselves. Some legal experts say it could be difficult to prosecute Melchert-Dinkel under a rarely used law because he allegedly only encouraged the victims to kill themselves, without physically helping them to take their lives."

Comments

Ok, so what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Killing yourself is, and should be, an individual's choice. Providing responsible and accurate on how to do it without causing oneself a lot of pain and suffering is a good deed, not a crime.

Re:Ok, so what?

[gmack]

Except that's not what happened, this guy pretended to be a woman, made fake suicide pacts and actually pressured people to go through with them.

Re:Ok, so what?

[WrongSizeGlass]

Except that's not what happened, this guy pretended to be a woman, made fake suicide pacts and actually pressured people to go through with them.

So what you're saying is that this is like The Crying Game but without the happy ending?

Re:Ok, so what?

[Sponge Bath]

Yes, this guy is pretty sick. From the summary I thought this was about assisted suicide of the terminally ill. The article makes it clear it was encouragement of depressed, but physically healthy, people to commit suicide.

Re:Ok, so what?

[Khashishi]

I think suicide should be legal provided that you inform the proper authorities and close up some loose ends.

Re:Ok, so what?

[Golddess]

And that's a problem... why? Seriously, if someone wants to kill themself, as long as they are not leaving a burden on the people they are leaving behind, what's the big deal?

Re:Ok, so what?

[h00manist]

There is freedom of speech, as long as nobody listens. If too many people start listening to you and doing something based on your speech, all your freedoms - not just speech - will soon start being questioned and curtailed all over. Take a look at anyone saying something unpopular, whether right or wrong. In the case of speech encouraging violence, death, etc, if people listen, there will be quite a reaction. Don't ask me if it's right or wrong. I don't think it's that simple a question, with black and white answers for every case.

Re:Ok, so what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Prepare for the onslaught of "but suicide is cowardice" posts. IMO, it takes either a person of incredible will (overlooked), or extreme depression (always assumed).

I was never seriously depressed, even after withstanding several (literal) life-changing events that would drive most people mad and permanently change their careers/public life. Suicide was (is) one legitimate option, and yet I could never bring myself to even seriously think about it; I consider it cowardice on my part to not embrace it: bravery lies with those people able to put material objectivism and the well-being of others ahead of their own self-preservation instinct (sometimes, dying does benefit the greater good).

I will never kill myself willingly, and I am shamed for that fact.

Re:Ok, so what?

[Will.Woodhull]

Parent post makes a telling point. The more so since the the accused had been trained as a nurse, which includes training in using communications skills and presentation of self to alter a patient's mood or self-assessment. In the nursing program I attended this training came under several titles: "therapeutic use of self", "active listening skills", etc. These can be very powerful techniques especially when working with a subject who is in a suggestible state of mind-- and there is definitely a potential for abuse.

He is no longer a nurse, so he can no longer be sanctioned by the state Board Of Nursing that licensed him. From what is known from the story, he should definitely face trial. At trial, he should be held to a higher standard than most persons because of his training, in the same way that a martial arts master who kills a stranger in a street fight should be held to a higher standard than the average bloke.

Re:Ok, so what?

[nbauman]

An individual choice has to be a rational, informed decision.

William Melchert-Dinkel was a nurse. He could identify and take advantage of vulnerable people, who were clinically depressed and unable to make rational, informed decisions. He tricked them into making irrational uninformed decisions.

It's as if you had a curable cancer and he told you, "I'm a nurse. Your cancer is incurable. You're going to die painfully. You'd be better off killing yourself now."

This is similar to the situation that doctors deal with every day in which a patient who is dying has to decide whether they want to stop treatment.

A patient has to be capable of making a rational decision. Some drugs and medical conditions make people depressed (independent of the normal depression that comes from dealing with the situation of an illness). Regularly, people decide during an illness that they don't want to live, change their mind after they get better, and are glad they didn't die.

Depression itself can be a clinical condition. People who are treated with drugs or talk therapy often get better, sometimes dramatically so. If a drug can make such a dramatic difference, that without the drug your individual choice is to die, and with the drug your individual choice is to live, that shows you how unreliable and irrational individual choice is.

I would reluctantly concede that people who don't want to live simply because the burden of life is too much, and who have been treated unsuccessfully for depression, physical pain, or any other cause, have a right to kill themselves. Quadriplegics have a legal right to refuse feeding. But that's only after they've exhausted every other option, which wasn't the case here.

We give people the right to make an individual choice to die, but not when they're obviously incapable of making a rational decision. Most of us want the government to interfere and stop us from killing ourselves when we're temporarily irrational.

Re:Ok, so what?

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

I will never kill myself willingly, and I am shamed for that fact.

The fact that you feel shame for this says interesting and rather uncomplimentary things about the society that trained you.

Re:Ok, so what?

[citizenr]

Yes, this guy is pretty sick. From the summary I thought this was about assisted suicide of the terminally ill

To be perfectly honest they were terminally ill - mental illness leading to death.

Re:Ok, so what?

[theshowmecanuck]

So what you are saying is that you support this guy's right to talk vulnerable people into killing themselves so that he can get his jollies? Do you pull the wings off of flies in your spare time too?

Re:Ok, so what?

[russotto]

So what you are saying is that you support this guy's right to talk vulnerable people into killing themselves so that he can get his jollies?

I believe that's covered under "freedom of speech".

Re:Ok, so what?

[sixsixtysix]

i'm sure they meant emotionally, which rarely counts. while i would say that emotional damage can often be worse than physical or financial, should we allow pain and suffering damages from getting dumped or teased?

Re:Ok, so what?

[MakinBacon]

What if instead of making it legal to attempt suicide, we just punished it with the death penalty?

Re:Ok, so what?

[iamhassi]

"The article makes it clear it was encouragement of depressed, but physically healthy, people to commit suicide."

Beautiful too. He helped kill this 18 yr old Canadian girl

What kind of sick fuck would say "Hey beautiful girl, you want to die? Let me help you with that..."

Re:Ok, so what?

[theshowmecanuck]

So threatening to kill someone is covered? Wrong. How about slanderous speech? Nope. Nor is counseling to kill one's self. From the way you talk I suspect you are one of those phony Christians, or even a legalist. If so, here is something to set you straight:

Matthew 25
41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink,
43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

Re:Ok, so what?

[a whoabot]

If it's not wrong to commit suicide, how could it be wrong to advise someone to commit suicide? You're advising them to do something which isn't wrong.

Re:Ok, so what?

[nbauman]

I assert that people who don't want to live for any reason, even if they have never been diagnosed or treated for anything, or have been diagnosed but refused treatment, have a right to kill themselves. They have no duty to stay alive.

Looks like we have a freshman philosophy major here.

Where does this unqualified "right" to kill yourself come from? Certainly not from U.S. law. Every state has restrictions on the circumstances under which one person can kill another person or himself. Doctors who have to deal with these problems every day have established guidelines which are close to, but not identical to, the laws. That's what I'm going by.

There are many medical conditions, including antibiotics, epilepsy drugs, anesthetics, brain infection, head injury, stroke, and hypothermia which cause delirium, agitation and self-destructive behavior. People in this condition may try to kill themselves, but when they return to their normal mental functioning they regard it as something they would never want to have done and they are grateful to the people who prevented them from harming themselves.

Because most people want to be protected if they're in that state, we've passed laws preventing them from killing themselves in that condition (and in most conditions). In fact, the laws usually provide that the government can usually intervene and prevent people from killing themselves.

So you don't have a right to kill yourself for any reason, under the law.

You do have a limited legal right in some states to kill yourself if you're mentally competent and have certain conditions defined by law because competent people with those conditions might reasonably want to die. Some doctors would define those circumstances more broadly than the law.

But most people would agree that you don't have a right to for example convince your mentally confused mother to make a will leaving you all her money and kill herself.

Re:Ok, so what?

[russotto]

So threatening to kill someone is covered? Wrong. How about slanderous speech? Nope.

You could make that answer to any claim of free speech. But if you accept free speech, the burden is on you to demonstrate that advice on suicide is an exception. If you reject free speech, we have nothing to discuss.

Nor is counseling to kill one's self. From the way you talk I suspect you are one of those phony Christians, or even a legalist. If so, here is something to set you straight:

I'm not a Christian at all, never have and likely never will be (unless they're right about everyone being Christian in Hell).

Re:Ok, so what?

[russotto]

Looks like we have a freshman philosophy major here.

I've never been a philosophy major and it's been a long time since I've been a freshman.

Where does this unqualified "right" to kill yourself come from? Certainly not from U.S. law.

No, of course not. It's a natural right, one which the law can protect or infringe but not create. IMO, forcing a person to remain alive against his will is a form of slavery.

Every state has restrictions on the circumstances under which one person can kill another person or himself.

Suicide is currently legal in every state of the union. Homicide, not so much. Conflating the two is pretty silly. These weren't cases of "assisted suicide".

Re:Ok, so what?

[theshowmecanuck]

And if the person is depressed, contemplating suicide but not likely to, except you talk them into it, you have killed them. Mental illness as much as people try to rationalize it here, means the person is not rational. This case is like a con-man who likes money and will bilk people out of material wealth. Except this con-man talked people into killing themselves because he valued the experience of watching people die. This is a form of homicide. If I talk someone into killing another person, whether for pay or other incentive, I am just as guilty of the murder. In fact, being the instigator I could be considered more guilty. This guy talked people into killing someone. There is a difference between someone who say, has cancer, is rational, and understands all they have left is undignified pain, and someone who is suffering a mental illness. If you council someone with cancer on performing suicide, it is a rational person who is asking for directions. I don't agree with it, but in that case I don't believe I have the right to impose my beliefs even if I would advise against it. If you read any of the articles, this perp was actively trying to tip the balance of an undecided person's thinking so that they would kill themselves. He was talking someone into killing. Not counseling a rational person who HAS ALREADY DECIDED. More, he even tried hard to get them to kill themselves in a way that would allow him to be able to watch so he could get his jollies. Some places would actually charge him with a type of homicide. Now if you still think that what this guy did was OK, you need to check your moral compass. The kicker is, even the perp knows what he was doing was wrong in every way and has admitted this openly. Funny how he can admit it, and many people here on Slashdot can't.

Re:Ok, so what?

[nbauman]

Where does this unqualified "right" to kill yourself come from? Certainly not from U.S. law.

No, of course not. It's a natural right, one which the law can protect or infringe but not create.

And where does this "natural law" come from? Freshman philosophy class.

Only in philosophy classes will people say that you have a right to help a mentally incompetent person commit suicide. In the real world, people overwhelmingly reject such things, and the law tries to reflect that.

Re:Ok, so what?

[russotto]

Only in philosophy classes will people say that you have a right to help a mentally incompetent person commit suicide.

Your bare assertion does not make it so. Nor was it shown that either of the suicides was "mentally incompetent", unless you circularly declare that anyone desiring suicide is mentally incompetent.

In the real world, people overwhelmingly reject such things, and the law tries to reflect that.

Really? Jack Kevorkian was controversial rather than being overwhelmingly hated, and was only successfully stopped when he crossed the line from "helping" to actually doing the killing. And his version of "helping" was a lot more than giving advice and encouragement over the internet.

Re:Ok, so what?

[a whoabot]

So, do you think it can be wrong to advise someone to commit suicide if the commitment itself is not wrong? I'm sorry, that was my question. It has nothing to do with the particulars of the case reported here.

"If I talk someone into killing another person, whether for pay or other incentive, I am just as guilty of the murder."

I can think of cases where this is not true. Say I am the person in charge of a justified execution (say the person has to be executed or some divine punishment will come down from on high). The person who is supposed to administer the injection does not want to do it. So I tell him that it is job and that due to his poor performance recently, if he did not do his job this time, he would be fired. So I talk him into killing the person. I don't think I would be guilty of murder, because the killing was justified, despite having talked someone into killing another person.

This is really the same thought that prompted my original question: If such a killing is morally permissible, then how can advising such a killing be wrong? That seems to be a general contradiction that people have: On the one hand they say that some suicide is morally permissible, but on the other hand they say that convincing someone to commit some such suicide is nonetheless wrong. Just take any other thing which is sometimes morally permissible -- eating bread, for example. If committing suicide is morally permissible, and eating bread is morally permissible, then the two actions have the same moral status as such. So, then, is advising a mentally ill person to eat bread wrong? It would seem to have to be if advising such a person to commit suicide is wrong, because the moral statuses of the actions advised are the same and so there would be relevant difference between the two which could account for a moral difference in advising either. If advising a mentally ill person to eat bread is morally permissible, and yet advising a mentally ill person to commit suicide is wrong, then whence the wrongness? It couldn't be from merely advising a mentally ill person to do something, because, as in the bread case, advising a mentally ill person to do something is not wrong in itself. So the wrongness would have to be because of something about the action advised. But the assumption was that committing suicide is not wrong. It just doesn't work.

Re:Ok, so what?

[SnEptUne]

I don't think the one encouraging others to commit suicide is any more rational than the victim. Either punish them both, or give both treatment. He probably need as much educational camp as the suicidal.

Re:Ok, so what?

[gnasher719]

And that's a problem... why? Seriously, if someone wants to kill themself, as long as they are not leaving a burden on the people they are leaving behind, what's the big deal?

The problem is that many people who are suicidal are just suffering from mental problems that could be cured. Allowing someone to commit suicide or assisting them when the only cause for the suicide is a treatable mental illness is the same as allowing someone to die when they have a medical problem that is lethal, but only when untreated.

Re:Ok, so what?

[gnasher719]

I don't think the one encouraging others to commit suicide is any more rational than the victim. Either punish them both, or give both treatment. He probably need as much educational camp as the suicidal.

Equal treatment for both. I agree fully. I understand that two of the guy's victims are dead.

Re:Ok, so what?

[nbauman]

Talking about bare assertions, how do you decide that natural law gives you the right to do something? Aristotle, who made some offhand comments that people use to justify natural law, believed that slavery was OK. Does natural law give you the right to own slaves? Who decides?

You just decide yourself, right? Natural law says anything you want it to say.

Re:Ok, so what?

[Nyder]

Except that's not what happened, this guy pretended to be a woman, made fake suicide pacts and actually pressured people to go through with them.

People don't get "pressured" into killing themselves. they make the decision themselves.

Those people obviously wanted to kill themselves, the fact that he may have encourage them to shouldn't even be relavent.

Sure, the guy is most likely scum, but the truth is, those people were looking for an excuse to die, and now their family or whomever want someone to blame.

Look, the world is full of all sorts of peeps. Some are nice, some are mean, some are mentally ill, some are physically ill. It's just how it is. some of us want to live forever, some of us don't want to live at all.

Just accept it and move on with your life.

Re:Ok, so what?

[Nyder]

dude.

I don't care if he said he was a fucking doctor. They were on a chatroom. Not at a hospital, not at a doctors office.
They were stupid to taking advice from someone they didn't know and had NO way to verifiy who the person was.

Quit trying to blame others for what was their choice.

They choose to kill themselves, and they did. They would of done it eventually, one way or another.

How do i know? Because it's very simple. peeps that are suicidal figure out how to kill themselves eventually, it's part of their makeup. Everytime they get stressed or in a bad situation, the first thought they have is "if i'm dead, i don't have to deal with this."

Unless they figure out some sort of joy in life, or how to have hope, they are going to kill themselves eventually. One way or another.

Re:Ok, so what?

[HungryHobo]

So everyone in the western world is guilty a billion times over for the countless utterly treatable/preventable deaths they ignore in the rest of the world?

And those are mostly people who actually want to live.

Re:Ok, so what?

[russotto]

Talking about bare assertions, how do you decide that natural law gives you the right to do something?

Well, if you'd like to throw it away, there's no need to worry about whether it's OK to kill yourself, as freedom of speech is based on the same thing, so we can just throw it out.

As for the right to kill oneself -- who are you (or anyone else, including the government) to tell anyone they must go on living? What duty do they have to you to do so?

Aristotle, who made some offhand comments that people use to justify natural law

Aristotle? Now who's the freshman philosophy major.

Re:Ok, so what?

[HungryHobo]

And where does this "natural law" come from? Freshman philosophy class.

As George Carlin put it.
"You have no rights"

You have as much right to kill yourself, convince someone else to kill themselves as you have to speak your mind or stab me in the face.

Only in philosophy classes do people even try to remain consistent.
In the real world people don't attempt any such thing.
Overwhelmingly they simply decide everything case by case based on how it makes them feel rather than based on any coherent framework of what you have a right to and what you do not.

Luckily the justice system tries to avoid basing all it's decisions on what people overwhelmingly reject or accept(mostly) and tries to be reasonably coherent about what what rights people have.

Hell if you decided if something was legal based purely on weather or not people overwhelmingly reject it then it would also be illegal to stand on a soapbox and argue for unpopular things like say the de-criminalization of rape.(just to pick something unpopular you could say, not to actually argue for this)

Unless he somehow coerced people into killing themselves this should come under freedom of speech.I can agree that what he did was utterly morally despicable but that doesn't mean it should be illegal to try to convince people to do things which they have every right to do and which are not in themselves a crime.

Re:Ok, so what?

[Adult film producer]

And that's a problem... why? Seriously, if someone wants to kill themself, as long as they are not leaving a burden on the people they are leaving behind, what's the big deal?

If anybody commits suicide after reading your comment then expect a visit by the police because I believe you just encouraged many people to call it quits, you murderer.

Re:Ok, so what?

[BungaDunga]

Er, when did beauty come into it? If it had been an ugly person would he have been less of a "sick fuck"- even marginally?

Re:Ok, so what?

[CondeZer0]

> Don't ask me if it's right or wrong. I don't think it's that simple a question, with black and white answers for every case.

Actually it is pretty black and white and very simple: Freedom is about being able to do things that are unpopular and others don't approve of. Anything else is not freedom at all.

Or, as one of my favorite quotes much more eloquently put it:

"The only freedom which counts is the freedom to do what some other people think to be wrong. There is no point in demanding freedom to do that which all will applaud. All the so-called liberties or rights are things which have to be asserted against others who claim that if such things are to be allowed their own rights are infringed or their own liberties threatened. This is always true, even when we speak of the freedom to worship, of the right of free speech or association, or of public assembly. If we are to allow freedoms at all there will constantly be complaints that either the liberty itself or the way in which it is exercised is being abused, and, if it is a genuine freedom, these complaints will often be justified. There is no way of having a free society in which there is not abuse. Abuse is the very hallmark of liberty." -- Lord Chief Justice Halisham

Re:Ok, so what?

[baubo]

Apparently. Sheesh. Yeah it's okay, apparently, for the unsightly to make away with themselves.

Re:Ok, so what?

[gmack]

There may not be black and white answers for many cases but there sure are for this case.

Free speech gives you every right to have an unpopular opinion.

Disagree with the way the country is run? That's free speeach.

Hate my religion? Shout it from the rooftops.. I'll deal because that's your right.

It may even give you the right to think that girl is better off dead.

What it does not give this guy is the right to say to that girl "hey we can die together it's alright" when he had no plans whatsoever to go through with it. Pretending to be someone your not for the purposes of conning someone is not free speech.

It's the same way free speech does not mean me saying "hey give me $100 now and I'll pay you back" when I have no actual intention of doing so.

What I find truly shocking is that I didn't find anyone defending guys who bilked people out of millions with stock scams as free speech but somehow lying to some girl to push her the rest of the way over the edge is fine.

When did money become more important than human life?

Re:Ok, so what?

[jesset77]

What it does not give this guy is the right to say to that girl "hey we can die together it's alright" when he had no plans whatsoever to go through with it.

So "meet me in heaven" is a bribe today, is it? He isn't saying "trust me with your money" or "trust me with your life", he's saying "I promise if you kill yourself then I will too". How does it make a difference to the other person that he doesn't go through with it, once they're already dead? Will they get the seventh circuit court of the afterlife to press charges?

Sounds like virtually every religion to me. "Hey, waste all your time and money and reputation on our doctrine until you die, and you will be storing up fabulous prizes in heaven." 8I

Re:Ok, so what?

[jesset77]

Media loves sensationalist headlines like this. "ZOMFG, The Interwebs killed 5 more people today. It's horrible!"

Srsly folks, just don't f$%^ing feed the trolls. 8I

Re:Ok, so what?

[sjames]

If you ignore the fact that depression is often treatable. This is like seeing that someone has broken their leg and suggesting euthanasia just because you think it would be cool to see someone die.

Re:Ok, so what?

[sjames]

I think most of us are happy that people don't have some freedoms.

Re:Ok, so what?

[lisany]

Some people do not want your help and think your purpose in life is to extend the length of suffering they're being forced to endure because some goody-goody thinks they have the right to interfere with personal choices.

Re:Ok, so what?

[Foobar of Borg]

Dead people are green people!

This message approved by ELF, PETA, and Al Gore

Actually, it was approved by the Soylent Corporation.

Re:Ok, so what?

[Hurricane78]

I hate how people in the 21st century still think mental diseases are somehow “not real” diseases. And that one would be “physically healthy” and “just depressed”!

Guys, just because you can’t see it, it’s not not real!

Let’s make the Data comparison: If data had short circuits in his positronic brain, causing him to act “all weird”, would you say he is defective, or physically healthy?
Now if those short circuits were software-caused?

The thing is that the brain can be not working as one wishes, by only the “states of the memory“ being different.

They are of course not terminally ill. They are more like having a flu which lasts for years and for which we don’t have a quick cure yet. (The pills you can get are currently the opposite of a cure, comparable to antipyretics. I mean proper state reconfiguration trough re-learning/re-association.)

So it’s like someone going into a hospital, suggesting to patients that should kill themselves.

Re:Ok, so what?

[Hurricane78]

There is one problem with complete freedom of speech.
Trough advances in social engineering, rhetorics, and (mass) psychology, speech has become an effective tactical weapon of mass-control like never before.

The list of problems is endless. For example, if you repeat something often enough, people start believing and defending it, even if they previously saw the opposite to be true with their own eyes. There were studies about this.
Nobody is completely free from this. Not even you and me.
It’s the whole “monkey see, monkey do” social conditioning.

For example: How do you know that when you jump from a 10 story building, you die? Yes, we all know. But who of us has actually seen it with his own eyes?
Or how many people think that you freeze to death in the second you end up in open space? While the NASA has an FAQ, stating that you easily survive 30 seconds or even more in the open space with no protection at all. Just a bit of reversible finger/skin swelling, and *EXHALE, keep your mouth dry and OPEN*.
Or how about touching a hot plate? With the induction ones, no burning at all will happen.
And worst of all: The conditioning of geeks that they would somehow be less cool. Who decided that? I tell you: Monkey see, monkey do. We think it must be that way, and therefore act that way, to fulfill our own prophecy, and say to us that we told us so! ^^

All examples of how speech manipulates people, and they blindly follow. Because we are social beings, and most of the time it’s a extremely useful mechanism.

But for modern times, I think we must develop a bullshit protector too, or free speech might become our biggest problem.

Re:Ok, so what?

[iamhassi]

"Yeah it's okay, apparently, for the unsightly to make away with themselves."

Not only is it okay, but it's probably one of the best reasons to off yourself.

Out of the top reasons to off yourself (financial problems, relationship, school/job problems, etc), I'd say "ugly" is one of the better reasons, wouldn't you? Most of those other problems come and go, but "ugly" is pretty much forever. That is one reason I could understand.

Re:Ok, so what?

[iamhassi]

"If it had been an ugly person would he have been less of a "sick fuck"- even marginally?"

Of course. Out of the top reasons to off yourself (financial problems, relationship, school/job problems, etc), I'd say "ugly" is one of the better reasons, wouldn't you? Most of those other problems come and go, but "ugly" is pretty much forever. That is one reason I could understand, didn't you learn anything from The Twilight Zone?

Re:Ok, so what?

[hesaigo999ca]

I tend to agree as if I really thought my life had become unbearable on myself or others, i would want a quick death and peaceful, not really something like going out robbing a bank and getting shot, etc.... some cancer patients or aids patients choose this path to deal with their situation, making it less painful for all....not that bad when you think about it.

Maddox

[Voulnet]

Maddox playing as a nurse. Well played.

Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can find a person guilty for giving advice on ending the lives of two people over an acute period of time... ... How liable should liqour, cigarette, and high carb + fat + low nutrition food producers be?

Is the only difference that she helped them intentionally take their lives, while the enablers of unhealthy lifestyle consumables help people take their lives over the course of years?

Either put the peddlers of these long-term killing substances behind jail, or get your hands off of my rights to do with my body as I wish (including self-terminate).

Re:Hmm

[h00manist]

Seriously, if they want to reduce murder and violence, they should start where it happens most, where it's planned and practiced in greatest numbers. Governments and corporations, mostly. Everywhere and always. Pass a law saying "no torture, violence or killing, no exceptions for anyone", and presto, you get quite the revolution and shove society into dealing with the future. Lots of questioning and crisis getting there, but a real future nonetheless.

Re:Hmm

[Kenoli]

No violence or else.

Re:Hmm

[master0ne]

except that the person here isnt a "she" only pretending to be a female, and made suicide pacts with these "victims" to encourage them to do so. It could be argued that without this persons "advice" there people could very well be alive and happy. They were not terminally ill... there was no counseling to prove they were even clinically depressed... this person coerced these people into suicide for his own entertainment. I have a problem with someone doing something as deceitful and horrible as this.

Re:Hmm

[h00manist]

Yup, that's exactly the big question. How do stop the use of force and violence without using it yourself. Basically you can't I think, at that point it's sometimes too late, your options are more limited. You need to plan and educate slowly to reduce it gradually. Violence starts at people's minds, hearts, or pain, and that's where it needs to be prevented without resorting to physical force.

Re:Hmm

[clarkkent09]

Pass a law saying "no torture, violence or killing, no exceptions for anyone", and presto, you get quite the revolution and shove society into dealing with the future.

Umm, that is pretty much the law anyway, unless you wish to ban using violence in self-defense or in law enforcement or in war which is crazy.

Re:Hmm

[h00manist]

Umm, that is pretty much the law anyway, unless you wish to ban using violence in self-defense or in law enforcement or in war which is crazy.

Trouble is, everyone with a reasonable lawyer and PR firm uses violence "in self defense", and most often gets away with it. Disagree, become a threat, they defend themselves. The use of force and violence is now institutionalized, sanitized, and invisible. Corporatized. The poor or ignorant, without PR, get involved in "violence". Others get 'briefly disrupted' by (insert undesirable element) and then 'return to normal operation.' In other unrelated news on the next week, there was an accident.

Re:Hmm

[Conzar]

You need to find the reason people commit violence in the first place. Why do people murder, steal, cheat, and etc? Resources. We can solve this problem by using a Resource Based economy. http://www.thevenusproject.com/a-new-social-design/resource-based-economy

Re:Hmm

[h00manist]

You need to find the reason people commit violence in the first place. Why do people murder, steal, cheat, and etc? Resources. We can solve this problem by using a Resource Based economy. http://www.thevenusproject.com/a-new-social-design/resource-based-economy

Taking on planning to reduce and eliminate all violence ends up with discussions altering all of society. Economy, to reduce suffering and violence caused by it. Education, to reduce violence caused by ignorance. Health care, to reduce pain and anger. Communities, to get things done with less suffering. Politics and law, to reduce war and police abuses. And on and on. It's the invisible detail lurking behind everything that everyone ignores and laughs at.

Re:Hmm

[Will.Woodhull]

I'll point this out again: the accused has had special training (is an ex nurse) in manipulating the emotions and ideations of others and allegedly used these techniques in his communications with suicide-prone persons to push them toward suicide.

In a fist fight resulting in death from a blow to the head, a person with no training in fighting should be held to one standard, but the martial arts expert should be held to a higher standard, since he could be expected to know of less lethal ways of terminating the fight. This ex nurse should be treated like that martial arts expert since he is more likely to have recognized persons with suicidal ideation and much more likely to know what kinds of things to avoid saying because they would tend to aggravate the suicidal spiral.

On the face of it, bringing this guy up for trial seems appropriate.

Re:Hmm

[Vellmont]

So the difference being what? One has a single "evil person" who does what they do for their own personal sick joy. The other is a group of people working for a large corporation doing what they do for a paycheck. Single evil deceitful individuals should be held responsible for encouraging bad behavior that could potentially result in death, while groups of people doing the same shouldn't? Or is it simply the suicide is an unacceptable form of bad behavior, and eating scientifically proven unhealthy foods in an acceptable form of bad behavior?

The situations are different to be sure, but I do think they're similar enough to warrant comparison between them. What's the real root of the crime here?

Both wind situations wind up with people dead that might not have otherwise died. Both situations involved the direct "choice" of the person who dies. Both situations involve personal gain from the person encouraging bad behavior. Both situations involve deceit. (If you don't think advertisement is a form of deceit, you're not paying attention)

There's plenty of people on this planet I think are extremely deceitful, encourage terrible behavior that winds up directly harming people, and largely do it for their own gain. Some of them even have radio/TV shows! I find what the guy did despicable. But I'm also not entirely sure that what this guy did is, or should be illegal.

Re:Hmm

[Vellmont]

You analogy is ridiculous, and you know it.

Obviously I don't agree.

The consumables that corporations produce, while being dangerous over the long term, do provide a level of nutrition. In other words, they aren't "all bad". Yes, you could find better nutrition, but it is nutrition nonetheless and therefore help people live. The person in question did nothing to help make a person's life better, just a way to end it.

I guess. Tobacco products provide enjoyment for the tobacco user. This guy provided some level of comfort, identification, and assistance to his victims. Why do you think they talked to him? So what's your point? The situations are similar enough that you can find apt comparisons between them.

You gloss over the long term versus short term thing as if it doesn't matter. If you help "kill" someone over the span of 120 years or you help kill someone immediately, there is a HUGE difference.

It matters, I just don't think it matters as much as you think it does. The two situations don't have to be exactly the same to further discussion and think about the matter in different ways. If a comparison were exactly the same in every way we wouldn't distinguish between the two. Why do you think there's such a big difference between the two? (Your value of "120 years" also might be just a bit off of the average human lifespan, so it seems like more than a little hyperbole)

You gloss over the difference between causality and direct involvement. The consumables you mention increase the likelihood of death at an earlier than otherwise age, but they do not directly cause it...But helping someone kill themselves is completely direct.

I don't agree. The guy didn't "directly" cause the death. The persons who committed suicide did. Both this guy and tobacco companies are indirect methods of killing people. I simply don't think you understand the meaning of direct.

I really wish people like you would stop and think before posting. Your post is so stupid (honestly) that I would think it is a troll and not an honest, reasonable assessment of the situation.

I thought a lot about the situation. It's too bad your only defense seems to be "you didn't think about this". We happen to disagree about some basic philosophical points and ways of thinking of this. Saying I didn't think about this before posting is merely insulting.

Re:Hmm

[Bartab]

Self defense is not "trouble". In fact, suggesting that self defense should be removed as a viable legal option should make you a target for elimination. In self defense.

Re:Hmm

[Vellmont]

Obviously I see the difference between them, and several times have noted differences. The thing you seem to miss time and time again is that they don't have to be "the same" to make comparisons. The world isn't black and white which you seem to need to make it into. For me the comparison is enlightening about what we value, what we don't value, who we find responsible, and who isn't responsible. If you try to paint this into black and white terms, the entire point of view vanishes into your dichotomy.

The whole argument is one of perspective. You may disagree with the perspective, and that's fine. But I'm not convinced you understand the nature and reason for the comparison.

Re:Hmm

[Vellmont]

I'll point this out again: the accused has had special training (is an ex nurse) in manipulating the emotions and ideations of others and allegedly used these techniques in his communications with suicide-prone persons to push them toward suicide.

Special training? WTF? He's a nurse, not a shrink. What kind of "special training" does a nurse receive to manipulate emotions and ideations of others? Is psych 101 really considered "special training"?

The lengths people are going in this discussion to make this guy into some sort of special evil doer rather than just a huge dick weed is incredible. The world is full of dick weeds that try to make others feel bad for their own pleasure. Why is this one some sort of "super dick weed" with special powers because he used to be a nurse?

Re:"former" nurse

[WrongSizeGlass]

Did she kill herself?

FTFS:

William Melchert-Dinkel

I know this is /. and no one actually reads the articles (just like Playboy), but at least pretend to read the summary.

mob justice

[Khashishi]

It's sad that people are being prosecuted for being dicks rather than for breaking actual laws. Mob justice acts with an arbitrary and inconsistent hand, and has no place under the rule of law.

Re:mob justice

[KDR_11k]

The law is supposed to define what being a dick means so you can be punished for it. I think I heard of a similar case (probably in another country) where someone got arrested for encouraging suicide. It counts as psychological assault and conspiracy to murder I think.

Re:mob justice

[kramerd]

It's sad that people are being prosecuted for being dicks rather than for breaking actual laws. Mob justice acts with an arbitrary and inconsistent hand, and has no place under the rule of law.

He pretended to be a female nurse in order to instruct others on how to commit suicide.

To clarify, the issue is not that he pretended to be female, but rather that he pretended to be a nurse (although if anyone relied on him being a female for the purpose of committing suicide, it in fact could be an issue).

I'm fairly certain that fraud, especially in the context of pretending to have medical training, is in fact a crime based on actual laws.

Meanwhile, he has been charged with two counts of assisting suicide, not convicted by mob justice (for example, being hanged in a tree without a court hearing). He has a chance to prove that he did nothing wrong, or to be convicted of a crime that has been committed, specifically because of rule of law. Your implication that charging someone with a crime based on valid allegations (in this case, based on the fact that the accused admits to having helped people commit suicide) should be seen as mob justice is patently absurd.

Re:mob justice

[jollyreaper]

He pretended to be a female nurse in order to instruct others on how to commit suicide.

No, he was goading people into committing suicide by presenting a sympathetic ear, the female bit of course being a big incentive for his lonely victims.

Suicide pacts are fairly common in Japan. You get suicidal people meeting on the net and forming dysfunctional little suicide support groups. They don't want to die alone so they get together to kill themselves, usually C02 poisoning from a charcoal grill. You just go to sleep and don't wake up. Often times the peer pressure of having a group will sweep people along to do things they would have lost gumption for if alone.

These people might have killed themselves without his influence but he could very well have been the impetus to push them over the edge. I've known people who got their rocks off with manipulating people but this really takes it just about as far as it could go.

Need tougher laws

[Anonymous Coward]

They need harsher penalties for those who commit suicide, so they are deterred from killing themselves. The death penalty would seem appropriate...

Utter insanity

[countertrolling]

If the law cannot distinguish between speech and action, then it is a failure.

Re:Utter insanity

[h00manist]

While I agree in principle on the absolute-freedom-of-speech idea, there is one difficult question with it. Speech encouraging and promoting violence to be practiced, promoting hatred, planning for weapons gathering, etc. Yes, the crime is in those who practice it, not preach it. But every massacre starts with a few people preaching it, then lots of people going nuts and doing it, with no way or controlling it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide -- "According to recent commentators the news media played a crucial role in the genocide: local print and radio media fueled the killings, while the international media either ignored or seriously misconstrued events on the ground.[11] The print media in Rwanda is believed to have started hate speech against Tutsis which was later continued by radio stations. According to commentators anti-Tutsi hate speech "became so systemic as to seem the norm." The state-owned newspaper Kangura had a central role, starting an anti-Tutsi and anti-RPF campaign in October 1990."

Re:Utter insanity

[countertrolling]

They shouldn't.. Speech is noise.. Any laws regulating speech should pertain only to the decibel level. Never the content..

Re:Utter insanity

[countertrolling]

The solution is a counterpoint, never censorship..

Re:Utter insanity

[KDR_11k]

Talking someone into suicide is an action. So would be giving them instructions that would in some other way kill them.

Re:Utter insanity

[master0ne]

so you also take issue with liable and slander laws as well? their put in place to help protect innocent people....

Re:Utter insanity

[countertrolling]

No, talking is just talk. Committing suicide is the action. And providing information must not be held actionable. We must never allow any single, or even multiple groups to restrict speech rights. Hold the actor responsible, no matter the motivation

Re:Utter insanity

[countertrolling]

Of course. I would hold the idiot who believed it, if he took any action against me. (say deny a job, credit, rental) responsible. It's like a cop who acts on a bad tip. Screw him. He's the one who messed up. And people have died, and are dying because of it. The one who pulls the trigger is the sole and ultimate responsible party. Slander and libel laws are used to protect the powerful. That's what they were created for. To anyone who slanders me, I can only say, prove it. If somebody acts without proof, I'll go after him. The state's sole responsibility is to counter bad info with the correct info.

Re:Utter insanity

[h00manist]

The solution is a counterpoint, never censorship..

Yes, ideally, combating ignorant speech with intelligent speech rather than censorship is best. Combating violence with law enforcement is best. However if in charge of a situation of a population with low education level, an obviously growing hatred level, several warnings of coming mass murder, weapons gathering, etc, as happened in Rwanda, all motivated by a few nutcases on television programs and radios using their 'freedom of speech' to promote mass murder, well, insisting on their freedom of speech and merely saying they are wrong with no actual effect, would seem to me to me closer to freedom-of-speech fundamentalism, rather than smart government. If I were in charge I would probably just find some law the pro-violence-hate-speakers are breaking and nail them for it for some time while putting something smarter on the radios. It's not always simple or black and white though when you are in charge.

Re:Utter insanity

[andrewagill]

For the record, the powerful have the least protection from libel laws. Powerful people are usually public figures (e.g. congresscritters, corporate executives), and they have no protection under libel laws.

Re:Utter insanity

[b4dc0d3r]

Define "go after", you pompous horse-fucking fart-smelling cross-dressing dim-witted thespian, who eats babies and impregnates women of a different race and is a shill for the Pretend-Nurse Unintentional Suicide Encouragement Association? I saw you littering, this person is a litterer and I'm sure I have proof around here somewhere.

So what happens now, how do you "go after" someone? I turn the above paragraph into a commercial and play it on every American Idol commercial break. You are internationally known as the poster who is insulted during American Idol, and I update the commercial to contain information relevant to whatever you're doing. Want a loan? Well you borrowed $800 from me and I never saw it. Looking to date someone? Well you wouldn't agree to a date if you know what happened to the last 2 relationships.

That's slander, and you say "prove it" - to whom? You buy a commercial slot to simply say "prove it"? Do you know how many athletes and other popular figures get caught, say "prove it" and end up in jail? A denial these days is almost the same as admission of guilt, and "prove it" is pretty much you saying "yeah, so?"

I've only done slander and libel, you say it's no big deal, your reply is "prove it." What action without proof do I even need to take at this point? How do you "go after" me without slander and libel laws? Screw the people who believed me, they're the ones who failed to investigate my claims, right? And how does the state have any obligation to you if you think slander and libel are not a problem?

If you can afford to rebut an international commercial slot, great. But since you can't the little guy just has to file a lawsuit for a few hundred dollars, instead of buying millions of dollars of advertising slots.

Re:Utter insanity

[h00manist]

Either way, the media is full of lies in ads, programs, news "facts", politics, everywhere. Yes, lying about others (to denigrate them) to the public is against the law, but it does happen often anyway, people with power manage to get away with it. Lying about yourself (self promotion) has some legal limit as well, much lesser, and also happens on a regular basis. I haven't a universal answer for it, but allowing people to say bad things about others when they have no proof does seem like a possible way to socially deal with problems, such as a known murderer which nobody has proof of. Gossip already ruins reputations right and left, sometimes it's true and sometimes not, but it exists already. Ruining a reputation does not exactly kill anyone, plenty of people live just fine with a pretty low reputation. It does make you lose prestige and money, but that's it.

Re:Utter insanity

[master0ne]

you missed his point (i agree with you though) he doesnt intend to "go after" the person who slandered him or is the source of the problem, only the person who wrongs him because of it, which is less crazy.... problem being in this day and age, a lot of people can believe one nut job, and wrong someone because of it.... thats a lot of people to "go after" to get shit straightened out! not to mention some of those people might be "un-touchable" or might not even believe that slander but have to omit/wrong the person because the slander EXISTS and they cant take a chance on their company/name losing credibility because the son of a uncle-horse rapists is now their CFO!

Re:Utter insanity

[Hognoxious]

Giving information != giving encouragement.

Re:Utter insanity

[countertrolling]

Regardless... both pretenses are equally bogus. The state can back off.. Instead of trying to silence the speaker, put earplugs into the listener. The rest of us shouldn't have to suffer for those who can't control themselves.

Re:Utter insanity

[drsmithy]

I would hold the idiot who believed it, if he took any action against me. (say deny a job, credit, rental) responsible.

How would you know ?

Re:Utter insanity

[countertrolling]

Define "go after"...

It's the same as you "going after" the libeler or slanderer. Why should the one who acts be let off? A person who takes action against me(as previously stated) will have to justify it. And I should have legal recourse against them if they can't. I would hope that acting on hearsay is deeply frowned upon, since out in the real world, it can't be stricken from the record. And if it isn't, then that right there is the problem.

I turn the above paragraph into a commercial and play it on every American Idol commercial break.

And I am able to do exactly the same thing. Though I would hire better writers. Your attempt to sound like Monty Python definitely needed some sprucing up. So, what's your point? Throw enough bullshit around and people will quit believing it.. As it should be. Verify what you hear, read, see. When you act without doing so, then you are the bad guy. And on you I would sic my lawyers. HTH

Re:Utter insanity

[KDR_11k]

Words mean things. When using words that have nasty consequences you should be prepared to face the results. For example when an officer orders his subordinates to kill people that isn't just speech, that's the action of giving an order. You are allowed to express opinions, dissent, etc but when you start using your words to influence other people you take some blame for their actions. You also take the blame for any damage your words cause directly, libel/slander (deliberately lying about people in order to hurt them), threats, false alarms (popular example of shouting fire in a crowded space or prank calling the emergency services), etc.

Speech without consequences is speech without value. If people are shielded from all consequences of their words they become worthless to listen to.

Re:Utter insanity

[countertrolling]

Ah, so the people who execute those orders are not to be held responsible? "Orders are orders"? Is that how it works? Is that what you're saying? Because that's what it sounds like. Words only mean something to those who act on them. Those who think first know that the words themselves are merely data with no intrinsic value whatsoever. Eventually this discussion will turn towards the subject of free will. So I ask you, do we have it, or not?

Re:Utter insanity

[KDR_11k]

Ah, so the people who execute those orders are not to be held responsible?

Of course not, they are responsible for taking the orders. More than one person can be at fault.

Words only mean something to those who act on them.

When someone tells you "I'll kill you motherfucker!" that's not a request for YOU to act upon them. It makes sense to detain the guy who's threatening you before he kills you, not after.

Eventually this discussion will turn towards the subject of free will. So I ask you, do we have it, or not?

It doesn't matter because putting someone in prison is not for some philosophical goals, it's for preventing them from causing further damage and to give a strong disincentive to crime. Whether free will exists or not the human psyche works similar most of the time and punishment will reduce the frequency with which the punished action is performed.

Re:Utter insanity

[countertrolling]

...they are responsible for taking the orders.

Then lay off the guy giving them. If nobody follows, what's the problem? Right there is the free will issue. We supposedly have the choice not to follow orders. And if that's the case, then only the followers can be blamed.

...the punished action is performed.

Do not conflate verbal with physical. Even "I'll kill you motherfucker!" must be treated on a purely individual basis. So unless you can find means and motivation, and maybe a couple of other things, you're SOL. The mere statement doesn't cut it. Until a crime has been committed there is no crime. If you want to criminalize verbal "action", then you at least should amend your constitution to mitigate the protections provided under the fist amendment, as opposed to misinterpreting ("commercial" and "obscene" and "for the children" are so completely bogus) it for convenience. And for bonus points, take action against those who act, if it causes harm, on hearsay, seeing as that's all libel/slander really is. There you would get all my support. Prior restraint ain't cool.

Re:Utter insanity

[KDR_11k]

Then lay off the guy giving them. If nobody follows, what's the problem? Right there is the free will issue. We supposedly have the choice not to follow orders. And if that's the case, then only the followers can be blamed.

Let's say the order giver is a dictator or another person in a position of power. You can't lay him off because he's your superior, disobeying him will make him order his other followers to punish you.

Do not conflate verbal with physical. Even "I'll kill you motherfucker!" must be treated on a purely individual basis. So unless you can find means and motivation, and maybe a couple of other things, you're SOL. The mere statement doesn't cut it. Until a crime has been committed there is no crime.

The statement does cut it if it causes psychological damage to the subject (and psychology is a very real thing). Sending someone written death threats (written text is speech too) will cause them a lot of distress and can lead to physical illness, in addition to declaring your own motivation to murder him (you don't need means at this point, it can be reasonably assumed that you could get some means). There is no reason to assume somebody who is making death threats is only making them for the heck of it.

Generally threats are considered to be a statement that you truly intend to follow up on, even your boss threatening to fire you if you don't do X can cause trouble for him if X is against the law (because it can be reasonably assumed that he will indeed fire you if you fail to violate the law).

If you want to make sure nobody ever assumes your speech has a relation with reality get yourself admitted to a mental institution.

Re:Utter insanity

[countertrolling]

...his other followers...

You noticed what you said right? Despite my asking if he had no followers? You're not getting it. A leader needs followers, or he's not a leader. It took armies to make the worst of the worst famous and memorable. The brave ones are those who disobey. So it comes down to the ultimate sacrifice if you stand your ground. But the order is verbal, and he who pulls the trigger is responsible. The dictator has to do the killing himself if you want to charge him with murder. It's up to us to scare anybody away from following his orders. That's how you counter a dictator. Make following him more painful than not.

If you want to make sure nobody ever assumes your speech has a relation with reality get yourself admitted to a mental institution.

You got it all wrong. I said nothing about relating to reality, mainly because that doesn't make sense. It's about how people react. And if you don't get a consistent reaction from different people from the same words then you can't claim the effects are invariable. Now if we have to start worrying about psychological reactions to speech, then everyone is going to license to say anything. Now you want to be politically correct. All disagreement and harmless joking is outlawed for fear of offending someone. And who's going to set these limits? 51% of the voters? No thank you.

...it can be reasonably assumed that you could get some means...

"reasonable" assumptions... Shame such a thing can be used as evidence. Convenient way of getting a conviction, I suppose.

There's an app for that

[PatPending]

Yup, there's an app for that: iSuicide.

Example of "help" provided

[monoi]

From here:

Kajouji: I am planning to attempt this Sunday.

Cami: Wow. You want to use hanging too?

Kajouji: I’m going to jump.

Cami: Well, that’s okay, but most people puss out before doing that. Plus, they don’t wanna leave a terribly messy mess for others to clean up.

Kajouji: I want it to look like an accident. There’s a bridge over the river where there’s a break in the ice. The water is really rough right now, and it should carry me back under the ice, so I can’t really come up for air. And if drowning doesn’t get me, hopefully the hypothermia will. Is there anything you want to do before you go? I’m trying to get my affairs in order—cleaning my room, paying off my loan.

Cami: I’ve got everything ready to go. My mom will get my insurance and money, so there will be no worries there. I’ve got my funeral s--- all taken care of. Got rope and stuff ready. Do you have a webcam?

Kajouji: Yes.

Cami: Well, if it comes down to hanging, I can help you with it with the cam. Proper positioning of the rope is important.

Kajouji: Thank you.

Cami: That method is so fast and certain, I can’t think of another way for me. I don’t want to feel nothing.

Words fail me, really.

Re:Example of "help" provided

[Anonymous Coward]

FTFA:

But shortly after moving away from home, she started using drugs and became depressed. She began taking antidepressants. Then there was a breakup with a boyfriend.

Drugs, antidepressants (which can actually cause suicidal thinking in young people) and emotional distress are a recipe for suicide. The guy's an asshole, but she is ultimately the one responsible for her own life. I really don't see how a prosecutor is going to be able to say that this guy's coaxing was the determining factor for her suicide. Afterall, she was hanging out in suicide chatrooms, so it's obvious that she had a predilection to kill herself.

I really hope that the ACLU steps in to represent the guy, because this is a important free speech issue.

Re:Example of "help" provided

[Mabbo]

The girl was seriously ill. Anyone who's dealt with depression has been there, myself very much included. The difference is that when I was there, and I talked with people online, they encouraged me to get help, told me that life was worth living. I was on an edge, and they helped me back off of it. If I had been chatting with him instead, while he pretended to be a medical professional, well then I truly do believe I'd be dead today. He was trying to encourage her to hang herself on webcam so that he could watch her die- like he had others before her. That's psychotic, and downright wrong.

Re:Example of "help" provided

[citizenr]

Words fail me, really.

Weird, I dont see any problem with that chat.

Re:Example of "help" provided

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't see anything wrong with pretending to be someone else in order to gain trust, then falsely entering a "suicide pact" with that person, then actively encouraging them to do it on a webcam?

Words fail me, as well.

Melchert-Dinkel was clearly steering Kajouji into a suicide that he could watch from the comfort of his desk chair, watching it streaming live from her webcam.

Perhaps if you don't see anything wrong that, you can agree that he's a twisted fuck and should probably be stopped before his snuff addiction gets worse?

Re:Example of "help" provided

[MyLongNickName]

Hi,

Assuming you are not trolling, then you ahve a real problem. There is a definite problem with encouraging someone to commit suicide. You not seeing a problem with it shows a complete disconnect with human compassion.

I'd also suggest you probably have problems with relationships in your life which will only get worse as time goes on. Please get professional help.

Re:Example of "help" provided

[citizenr]

Hi,

Assuming you are not trolling, then you ahve a real problem. There is a definite problem with encouraging someone to commit suicide.

I dont see the encouraging part. Some dude wants to kill himself, other dude pretending to be a girl tries to convince him hanging is better than jumping.

You not seeing a problem with it shows a complete disconnect with human compassion.

Compassion? Is that the same compassion that kills abortion doctors?
We don't know why he wants to kill himself, we only know that he already is convinced he wants to jump. There is no inciting to commit suicide, rather to do it in a specific way.

I was expecting bullying and/or blackmailing to commit suicide, instead there is only someone giving advice to people already committed to die.

Re:Example of "help" provided

[monoi]

I don't think she "committed" to dying until she stood on the bridge above the Rideau and decided to fill her lungs with water.

Here's a quote from the mother of the other guy;

Mark had had a nervous breakdown and he was depressed and incredibly susceptible. This person was there whispering in his ear every time he logged on. In the last email, this person claimed to be a nurse, saying he had medical training, and proposed a suicide pact.

Emphasis mine. The point being, he helped these people make that "commitment".

To put it another way: humans who are not ill have a minimum responsibility not to aggravate the illness of others.

Re:Example of "help" provided

[O('_')O_Bush]

"I dont see the encouraging part. Some dude wants to kill himself, other dude pretending to be a girl tries to convince him hanging is better than jumping."

He sure as hell isn't discouraging him from committing suicide... or actively seeking police or other authorities to help the other guy out.

Here's an analogy with a less controversial and sympathetic crime:

If someone told you that they were about to murder their girlfriend told you they were going to do it with a knife, if you responded that a baseball bat would be better then offer a helping hand in pointing out locations that do the most damage to the body, wouldn't you agree that you've committed both moral and legal crime?

I would say yes to both, since you have the knowledge that a moral and legal wrong is about to be committed, even though you aren't physically acting, you still hold the intent that the other person (girlfriend or the person you're helping) will die and decide not to act to prevent that wrong.

I feel this is a very close analogy to the situation above, as the only difference is the person that the wrong is being acted upon. It would be different if people had the positive right to death, but they don't, they only have the negative right to life.

"Compassion? Is that the same compassion that kills abortion doctors?"

Leave your straw man in the corn fields please. They are for crows and films, not discussions.

Quite right

[Snaller]

Suicide should be a human right.

If society tries to ban that THEY MUST help the person in every way and totally support them their entire lives - and if they are not prepared to do that they should shut up and back off and not prevent people from ending their lives if that is what they feel they must.

Re:Quite right

[h00manist]

Suicide should be a human right.

From what I know, from a humanist philosophy point of view, any human being needs to have the right to full control of their body. So if someone wants to do something insane with their body, they are entitled to it. Encouraging mutilation or death however, would not be humanist. So if you decide you want to die, fine. If you want to preach people should want to die, need help to die, should be sold equipment, manuals, videos, books, have suicide parties, suicide lounges, suicide workshops, suicide encouragement boot camps, pro suicide marketing campaigns, etc, all of which is speech, well, that would be psychological violence. Thats ideals, philosophy, morality, etc however. The field of law is another matter, and how to word the law so it's not abused either way is not so easy.

Re:Quite right

[Anonymous Coward]

I think suicide actually goes beyond humans, and is a very natural thing. Not an animal expert but I suspect depression is an natural animal instinct that evolved to benefit the greater good of the species to deal with situations such as over population, injury, inability to adapt, or other conditions that make the individual useless and of no or negative benefit to the species.

Of course you don't see squirrels putting guns to their heads because they don't need to. In nature if an animal were to become depressed, it would just use less energy defending itself from its natural predators, not feed itself sufficiently, or something like that and eventually *chomp* no more critter.

So yes, if humans want to reduce suicide they should focus on detecting and treating depression, being sure to involve friends, relatives, and making sure the individual had a sufficient purpose in the world.

Re:Quite right

[Will.Woodhull]

Suicide of a person of a mainstream western culture is the ultimate act of selfishness.

That doesn't mean that it may not be appropriate in some instances. It means that in western cultures the decision to suicide is usually made at a time when the person is seriously under estimating his value to his circle of family, friends, and acquaintances.

Other cultures value things differently. Suicide in some eastern cultures is apparently sometimes regarded as a way of protecting the person's social circle from the burden of shame that his dishonorable actions would otherwise tar them with. Suicide in some warrior cultures is apparently sometimes a self-sacrifice for the benefit of the warrior's brethren or for those he has been fighting for. Suicide bombers appear to be a special case where brainwashing techniques have been used to artificially impose portions of the warrior ethic on the suggestible. There are definitely crimes involved with that last, but it would seem that in almost all cases the suicide bomber is another victim and not one of the perps.

Should any of these be legalized? With our current modes of handling estates and insurances policies, etc, probably not. We would end up in a hellacious mess. Can you imagine the circus lawyers would make over the insurance policy of the ex soldier who wrapped himself around a live grenade in the crowded subway? Lawyers, actuaries, and writers of insurance policies already have too much space for erecting their circus tents. Should the crimes of suicide or attempted suicide be prosecuted? In general, no. There might be specific instances where this should be done: I think someone who straps on a dynamite vest should have all his insurance policies summarily cancelled. But these situations are rare in western societies; most of the time prosecution would just visit more hardship on the survivors with no particular benefit to anyone.

Re:Quite right

[MindlessAutomata]

So it's selfish to kill yourself... presumably because other people rely on your emotionally (at the very least).

So, if someone wants to kill themselves, it's wrong because other people might get really upset over it? So if someone is sick of life, in pain, or just plain emotionally damaged, they ought to stick around for others' sakes? Doesn't that make it selfish on the part of the people that rely on them emotionally instead?

Re:Quite right

[b4upoo]

Sometimes there is no difference between the simple truth and what you call psychological violence. When a person faces nothing but grim days, poverty, pain,abuse and disease recommending suicide should not be called a crime. There are some people in such rotten conditions that they really need to die. Pointing that out to them is not always a hostile act. I'm not sure that the law should ever get involved in such an issue.

Re:Quite right

[SnEptUne]

There is not a self in a collective, so it isn't called selfish. Sometimes, it is indeed sacrificing for a greater goods; however important to set priority with what are considered greater goods. When people live for their own live for their own greed, the more able one will often take advantage of the inept. Of course, one should think for their own live, but other people's value also need to be taken into consideration. Otherwise, civilization will not work.

Re:Quite right

[Artifakt]

It probably should be a recognised right, but you do realise that won't matter much in this case? The accused allegedly misrepresented himself in various ways, also called fraud. You have a right to buy real estate, and if you already own it, to sell it, but if somebody offers to sell you the Brooklyn bridge, the case doesn't hinge on anybody's rights being limited by a fraud prosecution. This is not a case such as Dr. Kevorkian's, where there may be a legitimate first amendment issue, but the sort of case that would have happened if 'Dr. Death' had never been awarded an MD degree.

Re:Quite right

[Hurricane78]

While I completely agree with you, this little piece of poetry here really made me think...
Dan Le Sac vs. Scroobius Pip — Magicians Assistant ...that in reality, it’s not always as easy as we both would like it to be.

Re:Quite right

[evil_aar0n]

> Suicide of a person of a mainstream western culture is the ultimate act of selfishness.

On whose part: the person who wants to die, or the people who, because they would feel bad if said person were no longer around, want this individual to continue his or her suffering?

Re:"former" nurse

[Golddess]

Men can be nurses to, so the part you quoted (I'm presuming you quoted it because that looks like a man's name) doesn't really say anything.

Minnesotan here

[smchris]

From the quick flash on the screen by the local news, our law might be worse than "encourage". It might even criminalize "inform."

Here's what he should do

[Cornwallis]

I think Mr. Melchert-Dinke ought to be writing to his Congressman. In fact, why doesn't he start corresponding with EVERY member of Congress.

Wow

[jollyreaper]

This man must be a 4chan god, a living avatar of Anonymous, the inherent contradiction of an individual embodiment of collective asshattery whose very existence generates lulz.

So now we can't tell some jerk to "drop dead"?

[tomhudson]

Better not say "Eat shit and die!" either ...

Next up - legal liability for someone going blind because you once told them to "go f*ck yourself" - and they did, over and over.

Re:So now we can't tell some jerk to "drop dead"?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's contextual. Speech doesn't mean anything that is a vocalization. Vocalizations can be speech, or they can be intended to create immediate, injurious actions, bypassing other people's rational cognitive function.

There's nothing wrong with using the word "Fire" but shouting it in a crowded theater is not protected free speech. Similarly, telling somebody to drop dead is generally protected by your right to free speech, sure, but if you go up to somebody standing on a ledge, who is clearly mentally ill and considering suicide and you tell *them* "Drop dead, you worthless sack of shit. Nobody likes you and nobody will care if you are dead", well you are no longer expressing yourself in a manner intended to convey ideas to a rational actor (speech), but rather trying to cause an imminent action that you know will be fatal to another person.

Re:So now we can't tell some jerk to "drop dead"?

[h00manist]

It's contextual. Speech doesn't mean anything that is a vocalization. Vocalizations can be speech, or they can be intended to create immediate, injurious actions, bypassing other people's rational cognitive function.

There's nothing wrong with using the word "Fire" but shouting it in a crowded theater is not protected free speech. Similarly, telling somebody to drop dead is generally protected by your right to free speech, sure, but if you go up to somebody standing on a ledge, who is clearly mentally ill and considering suicide and you tell *them* "Drop dead, you worthless sack of shit. Nobody likes you and nobody will care if you are dead", well you are no longer expressing yourself in a manner intended to convey ideas to a rational actor (speech), but rather trying to cause an imminent action that you know will be fatal to another person.

Is there a legal concept of "speech intended to create immediate, injurious actions, bypassing people's rational cognitive function." ?

Re:So now we can't tell some jerk to "drop dead"?

[Hognoxious]

Is there a legal concept of "speech intended to create immediate, injurious actions, bypassing people's rational cognitive function." ?

Yes. At the risk of being tautologous it's either "political campaigning" or "advertising".

Re:So now we can't tell some jerk to "drop dead"?

[sjames]

I'm fairly sure that if you walk up behind someone involved in a potentially risky procedure and yell BOO! specifically to cause an accident, you have committed a crime.

Certainly if you "exercise your free speech" to yell FIRE! in a movie theater you can and will be prosecuted.

I agree.

[tjstork]

Suicide should be a human right.

I understand the guy my wife took off with left a note on his computer's Notepad that became very depressed and was found dead with his soda loaded up with a bunch of sleeping tablets.

Yeah, make suicide legal...NOT

Re:I agree.

[Foobar of Borg]

I understand the guy my wife took off with left a note on his computer's Notepad that became very depressed and was found dead with his soda loaded up with a bunch of sleeping tablets.

Based on your other posts, I would guess that your wife ran off with this guy because you are a self-important jackass who thinks he knows everything and treats everyone with a different opinion as if they are stupid. People like you should kill themselves. You are useless drain on the world's carbon cycle.

In any event you still haven't provided a reason why suicide should not be a human right. Just because your life is a piece of shit doesn't mean you have made a logical argument against it.

Yeah, make suicide legal...NOT

Yeah, people who still quote Wayne's World are cool...NOT!

Re:Best method for suicide

[OrangeTide]

A vast majority of people who were nearly successful in their suicide attempt generally regret having ever gone down that dark path. Often times survivors of bridge jumpings point out years later that they are extremely grateful that their attempt did not succeed. It might be unfair to use bridge jumping as an example though, because that is one of the impulsive types of suicide. Plenty of occasions where people did not plan on jumping off a bridge, they just thought about while crossing and just jumped over. I believe individuals can exercise poor judgement, especially if done impulsively.

On the other hand there are numerous instances where the government is not the best judge of who should and who should not commit suicide.

If you had to schedule your suicide in advanced, and get permit to perform it in a manner that does not endanger others I think it would be feasible to allow it. I'm pretty sick of people who decide to off themselves by driving into on-coming traffic, which risks innocent lives. To entice the government to allow this, I point out that their heirs will have to pay various inheritance and estate taxes.

Re:Best method for suicide

[russotto]

A vast majority of people who were nearly successful in their suicide attempt generally regret having ever gone down that dark path.

No one who has actually succeeded regrets going through with it. And many who are not successful try again and succeed the next time; those who don't are the only ones you hear from, thus there is some serious systemic bias in any sampling.

Re:Best method for suicide

[OrangeTide]

You should interview Golden Gate bridge jumpers some time. few of the survivors attempt it again. And most of them end up better off after psychiatric help.
I used a very specific example to avoid systemic bias. The only assumption that I have to make is that what makes some people succeed and some don't when they jump off a bridge isn't behavioral. I suspect jumpers survive due to chance and not a lack of resolve in their suicide attempts.

If we can assume survivors and those who succeed are the same when they leap from the bridge. And half the survivors interviewed a year later said they regretted it. I think it is reasonable to come to the conclusion that those successful in the attempt would have also regretted their decision a year later. Even though we are unable to interview them, due to their death.

(Is arguing your normal knee-jerk reaction to a post?)

All to fimilar

[Kurt4sho]

This reminds me all too much of the "Law & Order" Called Home (2008) episode http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1031360/synopsis

Re:So words are actions then?

[b4dc0d3r]

Sic your lawyers on me for using words, which you continually try to say should not be punishable? Or do you mean that when I used words I acted, undermining your argument that the nurse using words was not an action?

Your point is basically that slander and libel are fine until they hurt you, then you have to take legal recourse. I can't believe you don't see how much sense this fails to make. With the current laws, you have a deterrent against libel and slander, so it doesn't happen as frequently. If everyone took your view and failed to put a stop to libel or slander, there would be a lot more of it around, and you'd have to fight a lot more legal battles based on your plan here.

You are not able to "do the same thing" - you believe that the system is stacked against the little guy already (1). The little guy can't afford commercial breaks on American Idol or other shows with lots of viewers. The slander and libel systems are set up to protect you, the little guy. If you have lawyers (plural), then you are not the little guy and your perspective does not capture how most people will be affected by this situation. Most people can only fight back by stopping the slander or libel and getting an official court declaration that says it was false. You're going to try to resolve it by spending lots of money on what's basically a political campaign war. No one wants to hear that crap, and it would undermine your purposes even if you attempted to be completely neutral. Either you're the little guy and you need laws against this sort of thing or you are the big guy and can afford to waste money on a public opinion campaign.

You have read and replied to enough slashdot comments that you should understand that few people verify what they hear, read, see. If you're depending on that as part of your remedy against slander, you're already lost.

Now, you're saying that you would ignore my commercials and "go after" the person who acts - but then you said above you would "go after" me since I acted. Using what laws, if not libel and slander? By your own words, which I would attempt to introduce in court, since I can afford expensive television advertising, you don't care until someone actually acts on those words. You're confusing your own defintition of "act", which was my point. Let me rehash.

You said slander and libel only exist to protect the big guys
You would simply ignore it until someone acts (differentiating between words and actions)
In my example I used words, not actions
You would send your lawyers at me because I "acted"
What basis would you use for the lawsuit if not slander and libel? I would otherwise have caused you no harm
By your own words, you would wait for someone to use my information as a basis to discriminate against you or cause you harm, and then sue them
What basis would you use against them?

In the majority of examples, you would have little or no recourse against a third party who does not want to enter into some sort of agreement or contract with you. I could spread all kinds of information about you which does not touch on any legally protected status, making any sort of discrimination based on that information completely legal. Most places reserve the right to refuse service for any reason (which is legal as long as the reason is not a protected status). So you can't legally force someone to provide goods or service or hire you or anything else. You are stuck, your lawsuit is thrown out. The only thing you have left is the libel and slander suit against me.

That suit against me gets thrown out because you stated that it is only words, and only actors can be punished. Or you win and by pursuing the suit you admit that words are actions, removing any basis of most of your comments in this thread. You have painted yourself into a corner by your own logic, and you fail to see it. You have to support your argument by making sense, not by re-defining words in different comments.

Now, either the fake nurse

Re:So words are actions then?

[countertrolling]

Sic your lawyers on me for using words, which you continually try to say should not be punishable? Or do you mean that when I used words I acted, undermining your argument that the nurse using words was not an action?

No, I said, sic my lawyers on you for physically acting against me. The reasons matter not. You need to prove justification. You need to show evidence, of the physical kind, for a physical action that causes harm. Using hearsay in attempting to justify your physical action should only get you into more trouble. Other than providing simple data, Verbal "action" is entirely insubstantial, completely outside the purview of the state. It has no right to meddle.

You're reading me wrong, you're simply creating an infinite loop arguing against points I already made, but that you misunderstand. My writing skills are simply not up to par, despite my clarity of thought. I'm tired. You win the internet. I cry alone.

Sticks and stones may beak my bones...