With this form of socializing becoming commonplace, there is a strong urge for the prosecution of offenders. Anti-bullying operations have proceeded past only encouraging people to avoid mistreatment of their peers to the establishment of laws that result in the criminal prosecution of persons at the fault of issuing insults, harsh words, and threats (Chin 261). This paper seeks to establish whether Michelle Carter’s actions of sending intriguing text messages that resulted in the death of Roy should be considered a crime. Where there is unkindness in people’s relations, it is often a vice and not a crime.
Any person reading the messages sent by Carter could have a hard time defending her motive. For a person to knowingly and deliberately mess around with another who is in a fragile condition of mind, it is not only wrong but also wicked. Irrespective of the mistake, holding Carter accountable in a court of law for an action that depends on the decision of the deceased is not only unjust but also takes away the significance bestowed on personal accountability (Chin 264). Nevertheless, the failure to acknowledge that the action of Carter was ghastly would also be disregarding personal responsibility. This case has been contentious even amid the most ideologically unswerving.
The moment that something terrible occurs, there is usually a strong desire to get justice. However, if there is no clear criminal, the situation becomes intricate. In the case of Michelle Carter, it was easy for the family of Roy to cast the guilt on her instead of finding liability on their deceased son. Additionally, in attempting to find justice from a court of law, Roy’s family members cannot get a sufficient solution for the loss of their son. Punishing Carter by making her spend two decades in prison cannot benefit Roy’s family in any way. The knowledge of the situation in correctional facilities and the mistake made by Carter signify that she is not in need of such rehabilitation or incarceration (LaPalme 1444).
In its place, Carter will only waste her precious time in jail at the cost of taxpayers but she will also be exposed to harsher criminals, which may eventually worsen her character than she was before imprisonment. Apart from the minor solace that Roy’s family members may get from the incarceration of Carter, her cruel punishment would not equal the life of their son.
Considering the gravity of Carter’s mistakes and the reality that she did not directly take part in the death of Roy, it appears as though the best thing would have been for the family members to seek redress with the help of the law of tort in a civil court. If family members had resorted to tort law, they would still have found some solace and Carter’s actions would have been exposed to the world, possibly giving them the similitude of justice. Even though no amount of money may replace the loss of human life, if Carter had been held accountable in a court of law, she would have been directed to give legal payments and damages to Roy’s family.
This would have been a better alternative than incarcerating her and shifting the burden to taxpayers who have nothing to do with the death of Roy. Furthermore, Carter is sending of provocative messages and her failure to intervene with respect to discouraging Roy from terminating his life should not act as an appropriate basis for the long imprisonment of a youthful woman, which could ruin her entire existence.
Order this paper