Intent is very important when it comes to prosecuting someone, but should that be enough to overcome giving advice that costs someone their lives? Day after day I see people posting articles against vaccination, or promoting cures for cancer that either do nothing or makes things worse. For this I’m going to assume these individuals believe they are giving good advice, and their intent is to help the individual they are giving the advice too.
 
For years, I’ve used this example. If I have a fly on my chest and your intent is to help me and kill the fly, but instead you kill me. This is an exaggeration, but the concept is still the same. Should good intent supersede harmful advice/action.
 
Just this year Michelle Carter was sentenced to two and half years for encouraging her boyfriend to kill himself. The law seems to finally be moving in the direction of the results rather than the intent.
 
So at what line do you believe anti-science need to cross before the intent can be ignored, and the individual is punished for the results?

State of New York has a depraved indifference law, not quite what you're looking at . . . .

There was the teenage girl just a few weeks ago found guilt after talking her boyfriend into committing suicide.

I would think in any case it would come to intent. In the case of the fly, there may be some leniency. The intent was to help. Similar case were someone pulled a gun on a cop and a bystander pulled his firarm. Pulled off three shots. Two hit the bad guy, one hit the cop in the shoulder. No charges filed based on intent to assist in the support of life.

One meant to help and did, one meant to hurt and did. I would assume intent would be the strongest ruler

(September 9, 2017 at 10:54 pm)Coveny Wrote:  
Just this year Michelle Carter was sentenced to two and half years for encouraging her boyfriend to kill himself. The law seems to finally be moving in the direction of the results rather than the intent.

How? Michelle's intent was for her boyfriend to die, and that is exactly what the result was.

If I tell you, "do the world a favor and jump off the nearest bridge" and you do it, am I at fault?

If you have cancer and as a layman I tell you cramp bark will cure you, your believe me and then die, am I at fault?

In each case the mental competency of each individual may need to be considered along with intent. 

These would be adult to adult issues. Adult to child issues (vaccination/medical care) would be a completely different issue. The child rarely gets the choice.

Agreed. The mental stability and maturity of both involved would need assessing.

If someone suffers from depression, and all they hear is people telling them to die, then those people are at fault when the depressed individual kills themself. Obviously if the person values the opinion of the second party, then the second party is partly responsible for what the person does.

It's a bit like the problem with bullying, which can lead some people to suicide. Just because the bullies didn't throw the person off the bridge, doesn't keep them from being partially responsible for it.

Quote:Day after day I see people posting articles against vaccination, or promoting cures for cancer that either do nothing or makes things worse.

Freedom of speech.  The current law in the US is Brandenburg v. Ohio

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444

Quote: Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

If mere lying were a criminal offense there would not be a preacher anywhere who wasn't behind bars.  Which might not be such a bad idea but is definitely unconstitutional.

(September 10, 2017 at 12:28 pm)Chad32 Wrote: If someone suffers from depression, and all they hear is people telling them to die, then those people are at fault when the depressed individual kills themself. Obviously if the person values the opinion of the second party, then the second party is partly responsible for what the person does.

It's a bit like the problem with bullying, which can lead some people to suicide. Just because the bullies didn't throw the person off the bridge, doesn't keep them from being partially responsible for it.

I think the issue(s) would need to be discussed on a case by case basis. Just from your post I have so many "what ifs" in my head that would change responsible to not responsible to can't make a reasonable determination.

While this debate could cover areas that don’t lead to deaths, for now I’m just trying to discuss where death occurred. On the point of Michelle Carter what if her intention to end his suffering? There are numerous cases where assisted suicide and mercy killings were prosecuted. Also with Michelle there is the aspect of free speech. How many times have you heard someone say something like “you should kill yourself” or wishing some form of death on another person. So, was the amount or persuasiveness of those statements that caused her to go to jail? Is it ok to say “The world would be a better place without you” once or twice… but at three times … that’s just too much? Or maybe it’s too much when you start listing their failures or maybe even how the world would be a better place without them, or that pain would end. And what about the type of pain as well? Pain from a breakup vs pain from a terminal illness are different situations.

Also, when there are accepted best practices and they aren’t followed we have no problem prosecuting people like Medical Malpractice. I think everyone agrees Doctors intentions is good but the results were bad and cost someone their life. Generally, though it’s only a loss of money, and takes repeated offenses before the doctor loses their license and no they are no longer able to practice medicine. There are rarely criminal charges brought against them, and they don’t serve any time in jail even if they are the cause of multiple people’s deaths. So, there is some precedence that recklessness and stupidity led to people going to jail regardless of intent.

But how incompetent, misguided, stupid, or reckless do you need to be?