Michelle Carter: Texting, Teen Suicide, And Manslaughter Law

In 2017, Michelle Carter was convicted of involuntary manslaughter for encouraging her boyfriend, Conrad Roy III, to kill himself. Carter, who was 17 at the time, pressured Roy to go through with his suicide plans through text messages and phone calls. In one such text, she said, You just [have] to do it. In another, she told him to get back into his truck as it was filling with carbon monoxide.

Carter was sentenced to 15 months in prison and five years of probation. Her conviction raised questions about the boundaries of criminal laws and free speech protections.

The law regarding manslaughter in Massachusetts

In the state of Massachusetts, manslaughter is a form of homicide that is distinct from a deliberate act that results in death. There are two types of manslaughter charges: involuntary and voluntary. Involuntary manslaughter occurs when a person causes the death of another without intending to kill, and it often arises from reckless or negligent behaviour. On the other hand, voluntary manslaughter involves intentional killing but under mitigating circumstances, such as in the heat of passion.

In the case of the 2014 suicide of Conrad Roy III, his then-girlfriend Michelle Carter was charged with involuntary manslaughter. Carter was found guilty of encouraging Roy to kill himself through text messages and phone calls. The prosecution argued that Carter's words overcame [the victim's] willpower to live and thus caused the suicide.

In Massachusetts, involuntary manslaughter is defined as an unlawful killing unintentionally caused by wanton or reckless conduct, or during the commission of a dangerous battery. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant caused an unlawful and unintentional killing, that the victim's death was caused by wanton or reckless conduct, and that the defendant's conduct resulted in the victim's death.

The penalties for involuntary manslaughter in Massachusetts include imprisonment of up to 20 years, substantial fines, and a felony conviction on the defendant's criminal record.

The First Amendment and free speech

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was adopted on December 15, 1791, guarantees freedom of speech. It forbids Congress from restricting the freedom of speech of individuals. The freedom of speech includes the right to not speak, to use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages, to contribute money to political campaigns, and to engage in symbolic speech. However, it does not include the right to incite imminent lawless action, to make or distribute obscene materials, or to burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.

The First Amendment also protects citizens from being compelled by the government to say or pay for certain speech. For example, in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, the Supreme Court ruled that school children could not be punished for refusing to say the pledge of allegiance or salute the American flag.

The Supreme Court has determined that the protection of speech is not absolute. The First Amendment does not protect speech that encourages another to commit suicide. In the case of Commonwealth v. Carter, Michelle Carter was convicted of manslaughter for encouraging her boyfriend, Conrad Roy, to commit suicide through her words alone. The court ruled that her verbal conduct "overcame [the victim's] willpower to live" and therefore caused the suicide, even though she was not physically present at the scene. This case blurred the line between freedom of speech and criminal liability, with some arguing that it deprived Carter of her Fifth Amendment right to due process by deciding law retroactively.

Criminal liability and criminal negligence

In 2014, Michelle Carter was convicted of involuntary manslaughter for encouraging her boyfriend, Conrad Roy III, to commit suicide. Carter was 17 at the time, and Roy was 18. The case raised questions about criminal liability and free speech, as Carter was not physically present when Roy died and her conviction was based solely on her text messages and phone calls.

In the United States, involuntary manslaughter is defined as "an unlawful killing unintentionally caused by wanton and reckless conduct." Wanton or reckless conduct is conduct that creates a high degree of likelihood that substantial harm will result and is undertaken with indifference or disregard for the consequences.

In the Commonwealth v. Carter case, the court ruled that Carter's verbal conduct "overcame [the victim's] willpower to live" and therefore caused the suicide. This was the first case of its kind to invoke this kind of criminal liability, as it was the first time that words alone were considered sufficient for a manslaughter charge. The court found that Carter's actions and her failure to act when she had a duty to do so constituted wanton and reckless conduct.

The duty to act arose from the fact that Carter's actions created a life-threatening risk to Roy. The court stated that "where one's actions created a life-threatening risk to another, there would be a duty to take reasonable steps to alleviate the risk." By failing to notify the police, Roy's family, or instruct Roy to get out of the truck, Carter breached this duty, which resulted in a charge of manslaughter.

Carter's conviction rested heavily on the content of her text messages to Roy, in which she offered advice on when and how to end his life, encouraged him to do so, eased his concerns, and expressed frustration when he delayed. In one text, she wrote, "You're so hesitant because you keep overthinking it and pushing it off. 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'll be free and happy." In another text, she admitted that she could have stopped him or called the police but chose not to.

Carter's lawyers appealed her conviction, arguing that it unlawfully penalised speech protected under the First Amendment. However, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld the conviction, stating that the First Amendment does not protect speech that is an integral part of criminal conduct. The court also reasoned that the government has a compelling interest in preserving human life, which justifies prohibiting the "wanton or reckless pressuring of a person to commit suicide that overpowers that person's will to live."

The Michelle Carter case illustrates the complex issues surrounding criminal liability and criminal negligence when it comes to suicide. While free speech is broadly protected under the First Amendment, certain types of speech, such as that which incites imminent lawless action, are not protected. In this case, the court found that Carter's speech directing Roy to get back into the truck created a high likelihood that he would inflict deadly force against himself, and therefore fell outside the protection of the First Amendment. The case also highlights the duty to act when one's actions create a life-threatening risk to another, with a breach of this duty resulting in potential criminal liability.

Cyberbullying and online harassment

There are several types of cyberbullying that parents and teachers should be aware of:

• Flaming: Online arguments that occur within direct messages and messaging apps.
• Denigration: Distributing false or derogatory information to damage someone's reputation.
• Harassment: Sending offensive messages, including verbal abuse and unsolicited sexual content.
• Masquerade: Creating a fake account or stealing someone's identity, sometimes called "catfishing".
• Cyberstalking: Sending threatening messages to intimidate someone. This can be illegal, depending on the details.
• Trolling: Intentionally provoking others to engage in online arguments, often through off-topic comments or replies.

The signs of cyberbullying can include:

• Emotional upset during or after device use
• Withdrawal from friends, family, or activities
• Being secretive about digital life
• Avoiding school or social gatherings
• Changing friends
• A drop in grades or an increase in behavioural issues at school
• Changes in mood, behaviour, sleep, or appetite
• Signs of depression or aggressive behaviour
• Avoiding discussions about device usage
• Nervousness or jumpiness when receiving messages or emails
• Deleting or creating new social media accounts

To prevent cyberbullying, it is important to talk to children about bullying and cyberbullying, and ensure they know they can come to you if they are experiencing online bullying or harassment. It is also important for parents to monitor their children's online activity if they have concerns about their child's well-being. Teachers and school staff can also play a role by building a positive environment, discussing cyberbullying in staff meetings and parent-teacher conferences, and providing information to parents about warning signs and how to respond.

While cyberbullying is not specifically mentioned in the laws and sanctions around bullying in all states and countries, it is important to note that many state laws require schools to implement bullying policies and procedures to investigate and respond to bullying. However, some states do not include cyberbullying under these laws or clarify the role of schools in responding to cyberbullying that occurs outside of school premises.

The case of Michelle Carter, who was convicted of involuntary manslaughter for encouraging her boyfriend, Conrad Roy III, to commit suicide through text messages and phone calls, has brought national attention to the issue of cyberbullying and its potential consequences. This case has sparked discussions about technology, social media, mental health, and the responsibility of individuals in cases of cyberbullying and online harassment.

The role of text messages as evidence

Text messages played a crucial role in the conviction of Michelle Carter for involuntary manslaughter. The text messages exchanged between Carter and her boyfriend, Conrad Roy III, provided critical evidence of her involvement in his suicide. In the texts, Carter encouraged Roy to end his life, advised him on methods and locations, and expressed frustration when he delayed. These messages were central to the prosecution's case, with over 4,000 text messages presented as evidence during the trial.

The content of the text messages revealed Carter's intent and state of mind. For example, in one message, she wrote, "You're so hesitant because you keep overthinking it and pushing it off. You just need to do it, Conrad." This message demonstrated her persistence in encouraging Roy's suicide and her attempt to overcome his hesitancy. Another text message showed that Carter was aware of the toxic environment in Roy's truck, as she instructed him to "get back in" despite knowing the potential consequences. This particular message was cited by Judge Moniz as evidence of Carter's wanton and reckless conduct, which contributed to his verdict of guilty.

The text messages also provided insight into the nature of Carter and Roy's relationship. Although they lived close to each other, they primarily maintained a digital relationship through text messages and phone conversations. This distance may have contributed to the intensity of their exchanges and the influence Carter had over Roy.

In addition to the content of the messages, the timing and frequency of the texts were also significant. The prosecution argued that Carter spent the two weeks before Roy's suicide texting him encouragement to kill himself. The volume and consistency of the messages demonstrated a pattern of behaviour that supported the prosecution's case.

The defence, however, argued that the prosecution had cherry-picked" text messages that served their case while ignoring others in which Carter urged Roy to seek help. They claimed that Carter's statements were protected by the First Amendment and that words alone should not be grounds for criminal liability. The defence also pointed out that Carter was not physically present at the scene of Roy's suicide, which created a complex legal question about the boundaries of free speech and the potential consequences of one's words, even when those words are not accompanied by physical actions.

Frequently asked questions