Teen faces trial for telling suicidal boyfriend to kill himself via text

Law attempting to catch up with technology

Analysis A teenager will stand trial for sending dozens of texts to her boyfriend encouraging him to take his own life.

Massachusetts' highest court rejected an appeal from Michelle Carter's legal team that the texts to Carter Roy back in 2014 were protected under the First Amendment.

She now faces an involuntary manslaughter charge in the US state for what a grand jury said was a "systematic campaign of coercion" that had a "direct, causal link to his death."

Although Roy, 18, suffered from mental health issues and had set up the equipment to kill himself (a generator pumping carbon monoxide into his truck), Carter – who was then 17 – sent numerous messages urging him to go forward with his plan.

The messages were subsequently made public by a district attorney in a court filing in response to her lawyer's attempts to dismiss the involuntary manslaughter charge. Among the many she sent urging Carter to go through with the suicide were the following:

  • "You just have to do it. Tonight is the night. It's painless and quick."
  • "You always say you're gonna do it, but you never do. I just want to make sure tonight is the real thing."
  • "I think your parents know you're in a really bad place. I'm not saying they want you to do it but I honestly feel like they can accept it."
  • "You just need to do it, Conrad. The more you push it off, the more it will eat at you. You're ready and prepared. All you have to do is turn the generator on and you will be free and happy. No more pushing it off. No more waiting."

It is, however, a text that Carter sent to a friend after Roy had suffocated that prosecutors are most interested in. According to court documents, she texted:

His death is my fault. Like, I honestly could have stopped it. I was the one on the phone with him and he got out of the car because it was working and I fucken [sic] told him to get back in.

Legal questions

Although everyone agrees that Carter's actions were morally reprehensible, the case represents a novel case in law, and the legal arguments will revolve around whether what she did was illegal. At the heart of it is the fact that she was not present but was communicating over a mobile phone.

Carter's lawyer Joseph Cataldo notes that the judiciary has already adjusted the traditional legal definition of manslaughter to make prosecution possible. "They created new law here in Massachusetts and applied it retroactively," he told People magazine after the Supreme Judicial Court decision.

Cataldo also argued that the release of Carter's text messages did not account for her previous efforts to encourage her boyfriend to seek psychiatric help.

The critical question, however, Cataldo argues, is: "Did he commit suicide causing his own death, or did she somehow cause his death? Because he took all of the physical acts and she was not present, I think a jury will not convict her."

In the Supreme Judicial Court ruling [PDF], Justice Robert Cordy argued there was "probable cause to show that the coercive quality of the defendant's verbal conduct overwhelmed whatever willpower the victim had to cope with his depression." But Cataldo points out the legal standard for manslaughter is the higher bar of "beyond a reasonable doubt" rather than "probable cause."

Traditionally, the fact that Carter was not physically present would make such a conviction unlikely. But a significant part of the relationship between the two was carried out over text messaging and phone calls and so, some argue, the previous interpretation of the law is outdated.

There is also the fact that she did not help him. She knew of his plan and his location but did nothing to assist him. The legal question in that case is whether she actually impeded his ability to get help.


And then there is the question of guilt, something that she appears to display – along with a recognition that she was in part responsible for Roy's death – in the text message sent to her friend.

All of these questions stem from the fact that the law was not written to account for ubiquitous, instant communication over mobile devices. Ultimately the question becomes: is virtual, online communication equivalent to real-world, offline communication?

In many other aspects of law, increasingly the answer is yes. Just last week, the United Nations ruled that offline and online human rights were one and the same. And there are numerous examples of situations where online threats have been taken as equivalent to physical threats and have been prosecuted.

In this case, that online/offline question will move to the peak of the criminal justice system: a charge of manslaughter. ®

Similar topics

Other stories you might like

  • Everything you wanted to know about modern network congestion control but were perhaps too afraid to ask

    In which a little unfairness can be quite beneficial

    Systems Approach It’s hard not to be amazed by the amount of active research on congestion control over the past 30-plus years. From theory to practice, and with more than its fair share of flame wars, the question of how to manage congestion in the network is a technical challenge that resists an optimal solution while offering countless options for incremental improvement.

    This seems like a good time to take stock of where we are, and ask ourselves what might happen next.

    Congestion control is fundamentally an issue of resource allocation — trying to meet the competing demands that applications have for resources (in a network, these are primarily link bandwidth and router buffers), which ultimately reduces to deciding when to say no and to whom. The best framing of the problem I know traces back to a paper [PDF] by Frank Kelly in 1997, when he characterized congestion control as “a distributed algorithm to share network resources among competing sources, where the goal is to choose source rate so as to maximize aggregate source utility subject to capacity constraints.”

    Continue reading
  • How business makes streaming faster and cheaper with CDN and HESP support

    Ensure a high video streaming transmission rate

    Paid Post Here is everything about how the HESP integration helps CDN and the streaming platform by G-Core Labs ensure a high video streaming transmission rate for e-sports and gaming, efficient scalability for e-learning and telemedicine and high quality and minimum latencies for online streams, media and TV broadcasters.

    HESP (High Efficiency Stream Protocol) is a brand new adaptive video streaming protocol. It allows delivery of content with latencies of up to 2 seconds without compromising video quality and broadcasting stability. Unlike comparable solutions, this protocol requires less bandwidth for streaming, which allows businesses to save a lot of money on delivery of content to a large audience.

    Since HESP is based on HTTP, it is suitable for video transmission over CDNs. G-Core Labs was among the world’s first companies to have embedded this protocol in its CDN. With 120 points of presence across 5 continents and over 6,000 peer-to-peer partners, this allows a service provider to deliver videos to millions of viewers, to any devices, anywhere in the world without compromising even 8K video quality. And all this comes at a minimum streaming cost.

    Continue reading
  • Cisco deprecates Microsoft management integrations for UCS servers

    Working on Azure integration – but not there yet

    Cisco has deprecated support for some third-party management integrations for its UCS servers, and emerged unable to play nice with Microsoft's most recent offerings.

    Late last week the server contender slipped out an end-of-life notice [PDF] for integrations with Microsoft System Center's Configuration Manager, Operations Manager, and Virtual Machine Manager. Support for plugins to VMware vCenter Orchestrator and vRealize Orchestrator have also been taken out behind an empty rack with a shotgun.

    The Register inquired about the deprecations, and has good news and bad news.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021