Talk:Michelle Carter (texting suicide case)

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Notability

The case raises complex questions about criminal responsibility.[1] It is believed to be the first involuntary manslaughter trial in the United States related to texting to encourage suicide. MaynardClark (talk) 20:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is likely to be part of setting a legal precedent that involves further codification of behavior. MaynardClark (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
...which makes deleting the page a terrible idea. This is less about news and more about the biography of a person involved in the news. Smghz (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We do NOT yet know what will become of Michelle Carter. If she is imprisoned, we don't know what she will 'invent' of that experience, nor what might unfold. Page has value for a number of reasons, which I suggest we list:
  • Legal precedent - will a legal precedent be set, or will the citing of the two prominent Massachusetts-based cases suffice?
  • If a legal precedent is set, will the intrepretation have broad application or narrow applicability?
  • Will the protagonist become historically notable in another sense from whatever becomes of her life (or will she be able to find personal peace in the midst of it all)?
I vote to keep the page  ! MaynardClark (talk) 21:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above, this case is likely to take part in defining legal precedent concerning our ever-evolving uses of technology and social media. At the very least, it's very easy to imagine circumstances in which both educators and students would value informative articles to reference (reference, not cite) concerning this case which has attracted international attention. I'm not sure I understand the arguments in favor of removing this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:4A00:1D00:6899:9C95:68F0:9664 (talk) 3:26 pm, Today (UTC−7)
Edit: I now see the problem, and I agree, this article should be merged with the Death of Conrad Roy article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6c40:4a00:1d00:6899:9c95:68f0:9664 (talk) 16 June 2017

Legal precedent?

The case is expected to set a legal precedent.[2]

The judge cited two cases as precedents.

  • 1816 - Northampton case law where a prisoner was talked into hanging himself in prison before the prison hangs him.
  • 1999 - Worcester warehouse fire created through Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's interpretation that, when someone creates a risk which could result in great harm, that person has a duty to report. Michelle Carter did not do that; she did not call the authorities or anyone else for help; she urged him to re-enter the truck; the Worcester defendants did not do that the the Worcester victims died. Therefore, there is a precedent for a duty to mitigate harms when one knows of the risk which s/he has generated. Did she create or increase the risk? That will be appealed energetically.

Will the Taunton MA judge's interpretation be narrow and only apply to Ms. Carter, or will it be broader? Current practice is to seek a narrow interpretation, but this case could be read more broadly.

Talk page references

  1. ^ "5 Things to Know: The Teen Girl Who Allegedly Urged Her Boyfriend to Kill Himself Via Texts". PEOPLE.com. 2017-06-06. Retrieved 2017-06-13.
  2. ^ http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/bob_mcgovern/2017/06/mcgovern_michelle_carter_case_set_to_make_legal_history McGovern: Michelle Carter case set to make legal history. McGovern, R.]

BLP1E candidate

This is a textbook example of WP:BLP1E. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have been discussing this above section. Why did you create a new section to discuss it? I think we ought to wait until the end of the sentencing before reviewing possible merger of the articles. MaynardClark (talk) 21:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant point is that she is a living person, which isn't discussed in either section. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's closer to WP:BLPCRIME, which is considered a subcase of WP:BLP1E. I wonder why not much about Conrad Roy's life was included that wasn't short-term observation (depression and anxiety, his recent interest in his grandfather's tugboat business and his earning a captain's license, etc.). No mention of his birth date or place, etc. In light of WP:BLPCRIME, the names of associated persons are not widely noted in the news reports (friends, parents, et al.) but are accessible through the social media accounts that were mentioned (e.g. her Facebook account). MaynardClark (talk) 21:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the death of Conrad Roy, there are medical and other issues relating to the death, but the discussion in the news seems to concern Michelle Carter's culpability, though the physical actions that more immediately led to Roy's death were his own immediately physical actions (carrying through the repeated suggestions). MaynardClark (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article name change

Now that she has been convicted, the article could probably use a name change. "Michelle Carter (defendant)" is no longer appropriate. Any suggestions? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:36, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd just use her entire name as the article name. Shukuramagica (talk) 04:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is a disambiguation page (here: Michelle Carter), because there are -- apparently -- several different Michelle Carters. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this is likely to be a WP:1EVENT case, we're better off merging into Death of Conrad Roy. Ibadibam (talk) 05:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some suggestions, but none of them seem "quite right": Michelle Carter (criminal); Michelle Carter (convict); Michelle Carter (killer); Michelle Carter (manslaughterer). (Is "manslaughterer" even a "real word"?) How have we handled similar articles? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest to keep current title because the case will be appealed and probably appear in courts in the future. My very best wishes (talk) 00:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? The current name (with the "defendant" parenthetical) is the worst of all possible choices. She is no longer a defendant. And it would be misleading to imply that she was merely a defendant (which further implies that she has not been convicted). She is, in fact, a convicted (fill-in-the-blank). So, she is a convicted killer; a convicted criminal; or a convicted manslaughterer. Or, removing the word "convicted", she is a killer; a criminal; or a manslaughterer. (There may be other terms we can also consider.) So, we need to choose. Take your pick? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. "Defendant" is not good now. Here is some info about her parents. I would suggest moving simply to Michelle D. Carter. My very best wishes (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes: I agree that using her full name (with her middle initial) is a good solution. However, I was not able to find her middle name or her middle initial anywhere. Where were you able to find it? And what does the "D." stand for? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The source (link above) provides photo of her parents with the following footnote: In October, a recording of Carter's first police interview after Roy's death was played in court as her lawyers argued why it should not be played during the trial. Carter is seen walking out of the court with her parents, David (center) and Gail (left). The source is not particularly reliable in general, but I do not think that was fake info. I made such renaming because the case and conviction were highly controversial. The argument by the judge was that the guy would be alive if she would not "encouraged" him to commit suicide over the phone. However, (a) no one can know this for sure (this is an opinion "beyond the reasonable doubt" by one man), (b) is she a danger for society to be incarcerated? and (c) she was not the reason of his suicide at the first place. To me this is also a perfect example of someone being misled (probably by her attorney or judge?) into believing that she should wave her rights for the trial by jury. My very best wishes (talk) 15:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes: Huh? Thanks. But ... I do not understand your reply at all. My question was: where did you find out her middle initial is "D."? And what does the "D." stand for? Your above response does not address my question at all. I looked at the link. I saw the photo of the parents. I read the caption under the photo. I have no idea what any of this has to do with her middle name or middle initial. Please clarify. I am not asking about the name of the mom or dad. I am asking about the middle name and middle initial of Michelle Carter, the convicted woman. Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is not the middle initial comes from the first name of her father? I thought it should be so by default. My very best wishes (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC) If not, welcome to revert it back or whatever. My very best wishes (talk) 16:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Thanks. But ... no ... one's middle initial does not come from the name of one's father. Michelle Carter may -- or may not -- have a middle name. If her middle name were, say, "Donna", then her name would be Michelle D. Carter. But the name of her father has no bearing whatsoever on her middle name and/or middle initial. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your renaming is pointy and POV. Please see the category for manslaughter. None of these people was defined in title as "(manslaughterer)". How about Michelle Carter (texting suicide case). Another possible option is creating new page Texting suicide case instead of this page. She is a person notable for only one event. My very best wishes (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. 1. I opened up the discussion for renaming this article, as you can see above. 2. I don't know what "pointy" means. 3. She is a "manslaughterer" and I named the article as "manslaughterer". How is that POV? 4. I, in fact, did look at the page of the other manslaughterers. Only maybe 1 or 2 people there have a parenthetical identifier, because they already have a unique name and do not need to be disambiguated. 5. The other choice present from that Category listing was "criminal". Hardly better than "manslaughterer". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A guilty verdict was declared. A disambiguation could be something like (suicide texting), and that could be analyzed and discussed further. However, I think that this page should (a) remain as a 'Michelle Carter' page (in some form), though I can see justification for a distinct Wikipedia article on 'texting suicide' - but not at this time; and (b) should not be named as it currently is named (so a less volatile title should be determined. MaynardClark (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I really think the easiest solution is to find out her middle name and/or middle initial. There has to be something out there somewhere. In official police reports, arrest reports, inmate locator profiles, etc. I myself had no luck finding anything. It may be compicated by the fact that she was/is a "juvenile". In any event, there must be something somewhere that lists her middle name. That's the cleanest solution to the problem of "manslaughterer" versus "suicide texting case", etc. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think positively about searching for and discovering the middle name or middle initial for THIS 'Michelle Carter' (can that be done?). Also, I no longer doubt that this is fair, though I still question the user of an 'erer' term in the title. Originally I had put that NPOV tag, so I removed it from the article itself. MaynardClark (talk) 20:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I personally prefer "Michelle D. Carter" and my opinion is that (manslaughterer) is one of the worst descriptors I have ever seen in a title on Wikipedia. Anything but that. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 23:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DarthBotto: Why would you "prefer" that? The problem with that -- and it's a big problem -- is that her middle name/initial is not "D". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC) 04:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Joseph A. Spadaro: For some reason, your ping didn't work. No matter, "D." being in there when it shouldn't is an issue. I'll weigh in on the Death of Conrad Roy page, then. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 04:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here is discussion of possible renaming and merge. My very best wishes (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Correlation to Megan Meier

I've noticed a lot of article and columns are exploring parallels to the Suicide of Megan Meier, which was a hot topic a decade ago. These publications include Wired, The New York Times and Newsweek. Is there an in-line context we may explore? Or, in the very least, perhaps a "See also" mention? DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 04:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should that link (Suicide of Megan Meier) be added in the "see also" section? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:24, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it would be appropriate. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 19:30, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That could be a useful, worthwhile, even helpful comparison. MaynardClark (talk) 01:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at the source [1], I think it discusses prosecutions for cyberbullying, which was not the case here. So, I am not sure it should be discussed in any detail on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have added it into the "see also" list. The "see also" section lists articles that may be tangentially related. They certainly need not be directly related. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Their motives

Why did they do it? I am reading this source, and it tells the following:

  1. According to the court documents, the boy was physically abused at home and previously ended up in the emergency room. So, that was apparently main reason of his suicide, not the girl?
  2. According to Peter Breggin, the reason for the behavior of the girl was intoxication by antidepressants. She started taking them from the age of 14 and had psychic problems in part because of the drugs, according to the doctor. She first tried to encourage the boy to seek help and do not harm himself, but then completely changed her attitude, soon after switching from Prozac to Celexa, according to the doctor. That was apparently her "reason".
  3. They mostly had only a virtual "relationship".
  4. It's hard to speculate, but she was probably so easily convicted because she waived her right to a jury.

I think all of that should be described more clearly on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 01:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had requested a credential psychologist, social worker, or other applied social scientist to review the project's reporting of the 'mental status' (phenomenology) of the two key players in this 'relationship' (Michelle Carter and Conrad Roy. Surely (a) questions emerge about each of those two persons AND (b) questions emerge about the general public's responses to reporting of the legal proceedings (and some have spoken publicly, and others have not).

Note that Dr. Peter Breggin testified in the trial about the psychopharmacology, yet that detail is not detailed in the Wikipedia article, another omission which could require or at least justify request for a competent forensic review (if we want a really good Wikipedia article here rather than merely a stub). MaynardClark (talk) 01:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess points 3 and 4 are already included. Of course it would be great if someone knowledgeable edited this page, however this is not required. We can (and should) only include something that RS tell. We can't include a personal opinion by a Wikipedia, even if she/he is an expert psychologist. My very best wishes (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday, 7,127 site visitors. MaynardClark (talk) 03:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is poorly written. One needs an additional section that describes the actual story of the boy being abused by parents and having mental problems, and the girl being drugged by antidepressants. My very best wishes (talk) 04:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Medication

Could the discussion of Michelle Carter's medications be moved from the lede to the body of the article? MaynardClark (talk) 17:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I now think that the discussion of her medications belongs because that's part of the flow of the case. MaynardClark (talk) 20:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DECA

There was a Daily Mail article cited for a holiday to Disney World but apparently the defense said she was in Orlando for a planned https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DECA_(organization) event[2]. I noticed this informal comment elsewhere[3]: "I am an alumni of her high school and I know that she traveled to Disney World to compete in an international marketing conference that she had to have earned a spot in competition to go to. I also know that while she was there her project placed Top 10 in the world..." Neurohz (talk) 17:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why does she have her own article?

Why is this not merged with the Death of Conrad Roy? If the case sets a precedent, shouldn't that mean the case itself should get the article and not the defendant? ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ 13:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. She is a person notable for only one event. This page should be renamed to Texting suicide case. The case is notable. My very best wishes (talk) 13:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, that was discussed before. But that decision could be made later, but not until the actual sentencing. Both articles were rewritten to minimize duplication. MaynardClark (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no significant duplication of content on the page about Roy and this page. That's fine. However, she and Roy are persons notable for only one event, this "text suicide case", which is even more obvious after the conviction. Here is the policy. I believe both pages should be merged and renamed as the event per this policy. This can be done either by renaming one of the existing pages and merging the content, or by creating new page (see the results of Google search) and making the existing pages redirects, assuming there will be WP:Consensus for doing this. My very best wishes (talk) 15:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial 'tendencies' since Verdict

Shortcut

The tone of this article, including editing and phrasing, photo shifting, and deletions seems to be driven by a desire for a harsher sentence. The verdict was 'guilty' (to be sure), but let's look carefully at his this article has been changed over the past week, since its creation on 13 June 2017.

Another question is the use of 'manslaughterer' in the title of the article when its the implication of the verdict but not actually KNOWN by impartial observers who did not watch the trial (so they could only believe the verdict but would not KNOW that the verdict was a factual description without thinking through the process). I suggest that we change the name of the article BACK to 'Michelle D. Carter' (to avoid this putative violation of NPOV. MaynardClark (talk) 17:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We need to know that her name really is Michelle D. Carter. If we know her middle name, I am fine with that. (As opposed to "manslaughterer".) In a discussion above, someone mistakenly thought that her middle name was "D." and added it into the article. I removed it. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If we could find some official police report or arrest report or even a jail inmate profile, they would probably list her middle name. I have looked all over, and I can't find anything. Yet. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This can be solved by merging the articles, as per discussion below. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ 19:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources of photographs

How did Wikipedians GET these two photographs of Michelle D. Carter, if Wikimedia Commons photos must be either one's own work or otherwise open source? I am specifically concerned with the recent arrival of the photo of Michelle Carter crying at the announcement of the 'guilty' verdict, which is also found published by the Boston Herald at http://www.bostonherald.com/news/local_coverage/2017/06/michelle_carter_found_guilty_in_landmark_texting_suicide_case. MaynardClark (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but since it was a public trial I would assume there COULD have been a free source taking pictures. However I don't know, and the picture of her crying does not belong. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ 19:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merger Discussion

The title of this article is problematic, and will continue to be so. There are WP:BLP concerns. I propose this be merged to Death of Conrad Roy. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What are the BLP concerns exactly? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The main merge discussion should probably be on Talk:Death of Conrad Roy. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a "rough" consensus in favor of the merge at this point. Barring new objections, I plan to do the merge soon, but not in the next 24 hours, so as to allow for further discussion. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a blank+redirect here, and copied the content over. I can't do the history-merge myself though, and am not entirely certain where to ask about it. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Michelle_Carter_(texting_suicide_case)"