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.
On-time delivery!
Get your 100% customized paperdone in as little as 1 hour
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.
In the rest of Carter’s life, she will live wondering if her actions were the cause of Roy’s demise. Additionally, a quick look for her name on Google and other search engines will always generate an overabundance of derogatory articles that will destroy her reputation and influence her career negatively. Incarceration is not tantamount to justice but the opposite is usually true (Chin 261). To make it worse, Carter’s lawyers state that she is affected by depression and other mental disorders. By putting her out of the community, Carter might never get the treatment and assistance that she dearly requires. No reasonable justification would make Carter’s mistakes appear proper or suitable, but that does not signify that they are criminal or deserve the judgment she received.
The case of Carter provides global limelight to an issue that may be argued in diverse perspectives. Whether her actions are assessed through the common law of manslaughter or some statutory directives, the concern of promoting suicide is a distinctive legal issue of fast mounting significance. What transpired was an urge, possibly exacerbated by a change in public opinion, to inflict culpability on an individual who spitefully encouraged suicide by her friend.
However, the emotional basis hits a legal barricade attributable to doctrinal examination. By shifting accountability for the suicide of Roy to Carter, the actions of the defendant were possibly a but-for and contiguous cause of the regrettable outcome. Nonetheless, the sequence of causation may be broken by an intentional, intervening option of the victim to end his life (LaPalme 1446). Therefore, merely cheering a person to end his life is inadequate to gratify causation if the victim conseque
Order this paper