More handpicked essays just for you.
Assisted suicide right to choose
Legalization of assisted suicide
Legal aspect of physician assisted suicide
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The Michelle Carter case was a recent trial that looked at the actions of then 17 year-old Michelle Carter and the suicide of her boyfriend. Carter was in constant communication with her boyfriend, Conrad Roy, in the weeks leading up to the suicide. Carter sent encouraging text messages and phone calls, with the intent of helping Roy commit suicide. Mr. Roy had a history of depression and suicidal thoughts and spoke with Carter multiple times about these struggles and his desire for his life to end. In the end, Carter was not present during the suicide, in which Conrad Roy pumped carbon monoxide gas into the cab of his pickup truck. Throughout the entirety of his suicide, Carter was in constant contact with her boyfriend, sending encouraging …show more content…
text messages to Roy to go through with the killing. At one point even, Mr. Roy exited the truck and told Carter that he knew the gas was working and he was becoming scared. Michelle continued to encourage Roy to get back into the truck and finish the killing. Roy had expressed before his death that he thanked Carter for her support and the strength she gave him in order to get through everything he was enduring in his life and finally the suicide he committed. She was eventually found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the form of assisting suicide. The verdict of the case was highly anticipated as it was unclear how the facts of the case would have the law applied to them. The controversy surrounding what the final verdict decision would be was somewhat unclear and confusing to many. As the case played out, it became more and more clear what the facts were and how the verdict was ultimately reached. In order to fully understand the concepts of law surrounding the case, we must first look at what exactly involuntary manslaughter is. According to criminal.findlaw.com, a crime that constitutes as involuntary manslaughter is one in which “someone was killed as a result of the defendant’s actions, the act was either inherently dangerous to others or done with reckless disregard for human life,” and/or “the defendant knew or should have known his or her conduct was a threat to the lives of others.” Usually cases such as these involve a DUI or car crashes, but the same aspects of cases like these can be applied to this one as well. Michelle Carter knew her action were putting the lives of her boyfriend in danger and her messages and phone calls clearly displayed a reckless disregard for human life. The third aspect however was somewhat disputed because Carter’s attorneys argued that her mental health background interfered with her ability to know her conduct was a threat to lives of others. This was quickly thrown away however as no substantial evidence could argue this fact, and regardless, Carter should have known and ultimately did know her actions were putting the life of her boyfriend in danger. There are also other defining facts of the law we must understand in order to understand the verdict behind this case. Involuntary manslaughter could be easily confused with murder by people who do not completely understand their differences. Involuntary manslaughter can simply be put as an “accidental” killing, resulting from recklessness, criminal negligence, or simply accidental. Murder however is defined as a killing committed by someone that is unlawful. This can also be easily thought of as homicide, which is the actual act of one human killing another. These facts ended playing a huge role in the outcome of this case and is crucial that it be understood in order to completely grasp this case and its law applications. While these seem to be pretty clearly defined facts in order to qualify for either crime, this case still was highly disputed and controversial to many. Could someone be held accountable of killing someone else because of text messages sent? And if It could, would this apply as a manslaughter case or a murder case? At the conclusion of this case, the facts were applied to the law and was than explained to the public. While this case drew national media attention for its unusual story and plotline, it also became a highly recognized case that shows how facts of a certain case could possibly have the law applied to them in multiple different ways depending on how a person interprets all of this information. Since the law is now understood, you can apply the law to the fact of this case and see how the judge came up with his final verdict.
According to CNN.com, there are a few key points and facts to look at in order to form an opinion. This article in particular helped me a lot in helping form my own opinion. The first point they made was more so regarding the controversy of whether or not Carter should be held responsible for the suicide. According to the document, Carter encouraged Roy to re-enter his vehicle and continue on with the killing, already in the middle of the process. This was a huge fact that helped me form an opinion that aligns with the final verdict from the judge, involuntary manslaughter. Since Carter encouraged Roy to continue on with the suicide, this solidified my opinion on the fact that she should be held at least somewhat responsible for the death of her boyfriend. Along with these points, CNN also cites the facts the she did not tell anyone about the suicide of her boyfriend, she did nothing to remove Roy from the danger of what he was doing, and finally knew the fact that what he was doing was dangerous and was ultimately responsible in part for this. Also, according to theodysseyonline.com, Michelle not only was sending text messages to Carter in the days leading up to the killing as well as the killing itself, but she was also in communication over the phone as well. They also state this was the reasoning Judge Moniz, ultimately charged Carter with the crime. This was a huge fact of the case and proved that Carter knew she was in the wrong and was putting Roy into harms way. Also stated in the article is the fact that the defense was trying to argue the fact that Carter was a troubled young woman. Not only did the previous stated facts of her phone calls de-legitimize this argument, but there was no clear evidence of anything otherwise. According to another source, masslive.com, Michelle knew exactly how long Roy needed to be
in the pickup truck in order for the toxicity to take effect. For me, this was another huge point in forming my overall opinion on this case. Since Carter knew the exact process in order for the killing to be successful, it shows her recklessness and knowledge, disproving other arguments the defense tried to bring up in order to free Carter. All of these facts really had to be pieced together and understood to really form a sound opinion on this case. Along with this, a good sense of what involuntary manslaughter is and exact what qualifies as that is huge in being successful in forming that opinion. In the end, I feel strongly that Michelle was rightfully charged of involuntary manslaughter in the suicide killing of Conrad Roy. All the facts of the case align with the law pertaining to involuntary manslaughter. The defense’s arguments brought up in order to clear Michelle Carter were quickly disproven mainly in part to the evidence of all of her text messages and phone calls. This evidence is clear and relevant to the task of proving someone guilty of involuntary manslaughter. Carter was responsible in part for the killing of Conrad Roy because of her reckless conduct which ended up putting the victim of the suicide into harm’s way. Along with this, she did nothing to alert anyone of Roy’s troubles or the harm he put himself into. My opinion completely aligns with decision of Judge Moniz because of the facts of the case brought up against the teen Michelle Carter, which proved her wrongdoings and breaking of the law.
On June 19th of 1990, Robert Baltovich’s girlfriend Elizabeth Bain went missing. Elizabeth told her family that she was going to check the tennis schedules at her school, the University of Toronto Scarborough Campus. She never returned, but her car was eventually recovered. It was found with blood on the backseat, with forensic tests showing that it was Elizabeth’s. With no clear evidence, the “solving” of the case was completely based on eyewitness testimonies, which eventually had Robert arrested for the murder of his girlfriend.
Wolson never denied that Kim shot her husband, however, he did not agree with the first-degree murder conviction. He believed Kim acted in self-defense to protect her children as well as her life as she felt they were in danger. John was very abusive towards Kim, he had even sent her too Winnipeg one weekend and he told her “to do it” which meant kill herself by getting into a car accident so that he could receive her life insurance. Wolson also examined both Jennifer and Christopher on the stand and concluded that their fathers abuse was constant. Jennifer told the jury that, „he had grabbed her arm..slapper her face…called her a bitch (Sheehy 92).“ She also stated that her father beat Chris „even worse (sheehy 93) than her. She stated, „He had been hit so hard by his father that he had marks on his body…had been removed by child family services for six weeks.(sheehy 93).“ Wolson argued that these statements clearly demonstrated why Kim shot John, clearly for self-defense purposes. He stated; “ what she did, she did it to defend her children She didn’t care about herself. She did it to protect her children.” (Sheehy113) As you can see, Kim clearly is a selfless mother who did absolutely everything in her power to protect her children and provide them the best life
In the case of People v. Vasquez, a horrible crime was committed by the defendant, Jesus Vasquez, because he was upset with his girlfriend, Abigail Ramirez, for leaving him and allegedly seeing her ex-boyfriend. Instead of choosing to talk to his ex-girlfriend, Abigail Ramirez, he decided to forcefully break into her home, push her mother down on to the ground, then chase Abigail to the restroom where he violently and horrendously murdered her. There were many primary and secondary victims in this case and left people in pain from his terrible criminal act. Although the defense tries to prove that it was Heat of Passion and that the defendant did not know what he was doing, the evidence proves otherwise. The video shows evidence of shared
It was reported that the ages of 16 and 17 did not violate any rights awarded by the 8th Amendment. The courts were finding out that the United States Supreme Court which held that the 8th and the 14th amendment forbid the execution of offenders who were under the age of 18 when their crimes were committed, was no longer valid. Some people were arguing that Simmons was older than 15 but younger than 18 when he committed a capital crime which meant he should have known better. Roper v. Simmons was argued on October 13, 2004 and decided on March 1, 2005. I agree with the Supreme Court for resentencing Simmons to life in prison without probation, parole or release. After all, the only reason he committed this crime in the first place was because he thought he could get away with it. He was 17, one year away from being 18 which means you are now an adult so he definitely knew better. It seemed to me that he was just trying to impress people and then be able to brag about getting away with something as serious as murder. Shirley Crook was only 46 years old and had so many more years she could have lived if it wouldn't had been for Simmons trying to be “cool”. I do not think this case should have lasted as long as it did though. It started in 1993 and didn't end until 2005. Christopher Simmons is currently 41 and will remain in prison until the day he
Karmen is a 50-year-old married who told her psychiatrist that she was considering suicide through overdosing on Advil. She complains of severe back pain that has left her with a “poor mood”. She talked about the injury for a long period of time. When doctors did not validate her injury, she described feeling abandoned. Karmen had gained weight and was upset about that. She did not take making suicidal comments seriously and often just used them as a threat towards her husband. She craved the attention of the doctors, and was flirtatious with the person who interviewed her. Karmen’s husband said that she talked about suicide on a regular basis. Karmen became sexually active early in life and has always gone for older men.
While John 's mother never confronted her husband about his actions, or went to the police before the murder she did eventually confront the police during the trial. " Sandra Telford had her husband served with divorce papers at Riker," (Locos Parentis"). While this was the right thing in the end, later everyone was debating on whether or not she should go to jail as well, but in this case I believe that she was just as much as a victim as John and Chris were. For all the jury and police know she could have been physically abused, and even gas lighted by her husband which makes it even harder to leave. These possibilities make it harder to leave someone and with a total of 4,000 deaths every year related to domestic violence she could have been attempting to protect her own life. While she personally was not convicted of any crime in this case, Robert took a deal and got two to six years in prison, his son was sentenced to ten plus years. This particular sentence is unjust due to the fact that John could have been dealing with the abuse from his father starting from the time he was born, so he may not know right from wrong. Due to this factor and evidence in the case I believe John should be put into a mental hospital so he can attempt to learn right from wrong and get the therapy he obviously needs. Looking at the evidence against Robert I believe
What would you do if you knew you could be dead in the matter of a few months? That’s the question Michelle, an inpatient dealing with leukemia struggles with on the daily. Although she’s a high school student with a bright future ahead of her, she can’t help but be pessimistic about her illness, and focus on the negative. In the story “the michelle i know” written by Alison Lohans, the author uses literary devices such as characterization, foreshadowing, and mood to convey the message that there is always a light at the end of the tunnel. Initially, the author uses characterization to effectively portray the theme of the story.
In the United States of America, our justice system is here to serve and protect people of the world. Unfortunately, some are able get away with crimes and others are fairly judged. This often happens because their is nothing proving a clear path of innocence or guilt. In the book Monster and the documentary Murder on a Sunday Morning, this can be demonstrated throughout. Based on the information given, the verdict of Steve Harmon seems to be incorrect while the verdict of Brenton Butler seems to be correct.
The issue here I believe is with the justice system itself and not the direct actions of the prosecution or the police involved. The blame isn’t really so easy to point out honestly. If anyone is to blame at all it would be the people who tampered with the crime scene and the potential failure/inability of the police in preserving the scene if it was possible.
I have many reasons to believe that Betsy Cline is not innocent. This young lady has practically led me to believe that she is guilty. She has clearly proven that she is not in favor of Mr. Griffin, by her remarks on her assignments. Knowing that she is not in favor of Mr. Griffin, it is safe to say that Betsy Cline has a motive. This motive could have easily driven her into the harming of Brian Griffin. Being that Betsy has a motive, I have no choice but to assume that Miss Betsy was not forced, or peer pressured into this murder. I strongly believe the previous statement, because Ms. Cline knew what she was doing was certainly wrong, and yet she still continued to proceed. Betsy was not intoxicated, or under a trance she had the full capacity to know right from wrong. She had many opportunities to run away, and tell a soul, but she never once tried.
The jury’s decision, however, was not based on evidence, but on race. A jury is supposed to put their beliefs aside and make a decision based on the information given during the trial. Jury members must do their duty and do what is right. I tried to do what was right, but all the other members of the jury were blind. They chose to convict because of skin color rather than actual evidence from the case.
The concept of suicide has always been the controversial debate topic among the philosophers. Since the birth of Christianity in Western world, committing a suicide is generally accepted as the act of immorality and the transgression of our duty toward God. By mid-16th century, David Hume, a Scottish philosopher, questions this traditional duty-based ethic of suicide. As he
Can you single out just one day from your past that you can honestly say changed your life forever? I know I can. It was a typical January day, with one exception; it was the day the Pope came to St. Louis. My brother and I had tickets to the youth rally, and we were both very excited. It was destined to be an awesome day- or so we thought. The glory and euphoria of the Papal visit quickly faded into a time of incredible pain and sorrow, a time from which I am still emerging.
Suicide, it's not pretty. For those of you who don't know what it is, it's the
My stomach weakens with a thought that something is wrong, what would be the answer I could have never been ready for. I call my best friend late one night, for some reason she is the only person’s voice I wanted to hear, the only person who I wanted to tell me that everything will be okay. She answer’s the phone and tells me she loves me, as I hear the tears leak through, I ask her what is wrong. The flood gates open with only the horrid words “I can’t do this anymore”. My heart races as I tell her that I am on my way, what I was about to see will never leave my thoughts.