"Cyberbully" Case Overturned - Page 9 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Sunshine · #**121** (**permalink**) 07-07-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

Quite true, I'm sure, though also irrelevant to what I said where you quoted me.

If wishes were fishes... I'd suggest that you not post from wiki or else not worry about getting shit for posting from wiki. That's likely to be more effective than doing something and declaring that you don't want shit.

Sunshine · #**122** (**permalink**) 07-07-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Drake

The whole idea is that it's a different type if guilt, one might argue it's not actual guilt at all but simply a recognition that damage was done and should be redressed. That would explain why the standard of proof is less.

My understanding is that your second para scenario rarely happens, most of the time if one cannot be convicted criminally then there is no case civilly either. Contrary to conservative myth it is not easy to "get off" once you are brought to trial and if you do you usually shouldn't have been brought to trial in the first place.

Here is the reason for the difference:

Quote:

Burden of proof. The most important procedural difference between civil trials and criminal trials is the difference in the burden of proof. In civil trials where, for example, driver Smith claims that driver Jones was at fault in causing an accident and thus was responsible for Smith's damages, Smith must prove Jones's negligence by a preponderance of the evidence. This simply means that the jury must find Smith's evidence on the issue more convincing, even if only slightly so, than any evidence Jones offers. The scale must tip at least a bit in Smith's favor for Smith to prevail.

In a criminal trial the situation is quite different: the prosecution must prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This is obviously a very heavy burden of proof. To explain its meaning a standard jury instruction tells jurors that in order to find the defendant guilty they must be convinced by "proof of such convincing character that a reasonable person would not hesitate to rely and act upon it in the most important of his or her own affairs" (Devitt, Blackmar, and Wolff, p. 354). If, after hearing all the evidence, a jury has a reasonable doubt, then it must return a verdict of not guilty.

The reasonable-doubt standard in criminal cases is constitutionally required, and it has long been viewed as a central safeguard against erroneous conviction and the resulting loss of the wrongly convicted defendant's liberty and good name. Because a defendant in a criminal trial has at stake interests of immense importance, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that due process demands that the margin of error in criminal cases be reduced in the defendant's favor by placing on the prosecution the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970)).

Criminal Trial - Civil Versus Criminal Trends

drgoodtrips · #**123** (**permalink**) 07-07-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Drake

The whole idea is that it's a different type if guilt, one might argue it's not actual guilt at all but simply a recognition that damage was done and should be redressed. That would explain why the standard of proof is less.

My understanding is that your second para scenario rarely happens, most of the time if one cannot be convicted criminally then there is no case civilly either. Contrary to conservative myth it is not easy to "get off" once you are brought to trial and if you do you usually shouldn't have been brought to trial in the first place.

The fact that something happens rarely shouldn't be a valid defense against improving the practice. That sounds like the same argument used by avid proponents of the death penalty - executing innocent people rarely happens, and besides, you need to break a few eggs to make an omelette.

Slon · #**124** (**permalink**) 07-07-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Drake

The "stupid little girl" was also THIRTEEN YEARS OLD.

The important fact being not that she is THIRTEEN YEARS OLD, but that she COMMITTED SUICIDE.

Quote:

If she had put on her mothers makeup and a miniskirt, went out to a truck stop and dragged home a 30 year old American Express Driver that would be RAPE in the eyes of the law.

Lori Drew didn't lay a finger on Megan, legally or illegally.

Quote:

You can't sign contracts, drink or even legally take care of yourself at that age, but by your and Slon's lights you're somehow expected to stand up to a full scale psychic attack, the deceptivness and depravity of which would cow many adults???

Actually, I didn't expect her to stand up to any of that. In fact, I believe I have suggested she stop reading the messages, be they "psychic attacks" from special operations units that can read minds, "deceptivness" and "depravity"-filled texts, or anything else. That would have avoided them. You're making her situation seem infinitely more difficult than it actually was, which is unsurprising since you think she was apparently murdered.

Quote:

You're EXPECTED to be somewhat stupid at that age.

Maybe, but that doesn't mean everyone has to make up for her stupidity.

Quote:

Be honest, how would you feel if this had been done to YOUR daughter? Would you still say she was just a "stupid little girl" ?

Well, yes, actually, although I guess it would depend on the circumstances. Suicide isn't ALWAYS stupid. Sometimes it's the rational thing to do.

Steve · #**125** (**permalink**) 07-07-2009

Quote:

...it has long been viewed as a central safeguard against erroneous conviction and the resulting loss of the wrongly convicted defendant's liberty and good name.

Is destroying a person's good name simply unimportant in a civil trial, even if the person hasn't done anything?

Quote:

Because a defendant in a criminal trial has at stake interests of immense importance, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that due process demands that the margin of error in criminal cases be reduced in the defendant's favor by placing on the prosecution the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt

This is what I don't understand.

How is it reasoned that the damage someone may suffer from a civil lawsuit is, somehow, not as important as that suffered by someone in a criminal case?

The law should not permit civil prosecution of someone who has previously been found not guilty in a criminal case. The fact that the criminal case requires a far greater burden of proof, I believe, actually supports this. If a DA, and all of his resources, cannot find guilt, the person bringing a suit in a civil court should be required to prove how the prosecution screwed up in the criminal trial. That’s my opinion, and I realize that’s not the law. Just felt I had to say that before “Marcia Clark” here throws one of her hysterical little hissy fits.

If someone is found guilty in a criminal trial, I have no problem with them being pursued in a civil court, as well. But, if they’re found not guilty, that really should be the end of it…

Steve · #**126** (**permalink**) 07-07-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Drake

One of its major functions is, in fact, for cases just like this, where no actual law was violated but substantial damage was still done, hence the need to restore "equity".

If that's the case, then the woman never should've been tried in a criminal court...

Steve · #**127** (**permalink**) 07-07-2009

Since Sunshine seems to have either dodged it or not comprehended it, I'll repeat what really is a pretty important point:

The girl was 13 when she signed up for MySpace. MySpace TOS requires someone to be 14. In any legal action, MySpace should, therefore, be charged. In fact, a case could be made that her parents were complicit if they knew about her account.

If her parents knew she was on MySpace, then they and MySpace helped to facilitate this girls suicide...

Slon · #**128** (**permalink**) 07-07-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

Since Sunshine seems to have either dodged it or not comprehended it, I'll repeat what really is a pretty important point:

The girl was 13 when she signed up for MySpace. MySpace TOS requires someone to be 14. In any legal action, MySpace should, therefore, be charged. In fact, a case could be made that her parents were complicit if they knew about her account.

If her parents knew she was on MySpace, then they and MySpace helped to facilitate this girls suicide...

Actually, if the TOS requires someone to be 14, didn't the girl lie when she signed up for it?

Steve · #**129** (**permalink**) 07-07-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slon

Actually, if the TOS requires someone to be 14, didn't the girl lie when she signed up for it?

I suppose so, yeah...

drgoodtrips · #**130** (**permalink**) 07-07-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

I suppose so, yeah...

Then, had the jury's verdict stood, it stands to reason that the young girl's parents should have been indicted for the same crime as that batshit mother who caused the girl to become upset. They were allowing "computer fraud" to take place in their home....

...which brings me back to the point of my OP. It's a good demonstration of the absurdity of charging someone with "computer fraud" for violating the terms of service. Under that interpretation of the law, the girl who committed suicide and the mother who upset her were equivalent in their participation in their exchange.

Steve · #**131** (**permalink**) 07-07-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

Then, had the jury's verdict stood, it stands to reason that the young girl's parents should have been indicted for the same crime as that batshit mother who caused the girl to become upset. They were allowing "computer fraud" to take place in their home....

...which brings me back to the point of my OP. It's a good demonstration of the absurdity of charging someone with "computer fraud" for violating the terms of service. Under that interpretation of the law, the girl who committed suicide and the mother who upset her were equivalent in their participation in their exchange.

True...

Sunshine · #**132** (**permalink**) 07-07-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

Since Sunshine seems to have either dodged it or not comprehended it, I'll repeat what really is a pretty important point:

The girl was 13 when she signed up for MySpace. MySpace TOS requires someone to be 14. In any legal action, MySpace should, therefore, be charged. In fact, a case could be made that her parents were complicit if they knew about her account.

If her parents knew she was on MySpace, then they and MySpace helped to facilitate this girls suicide...

It is you who does not comprehend. You have yet to understand one legal term I have posted and I have gone to the sources that simplify it so anyone can understand.

It would seem that now you are not aware of the legal term 'strict liability.' This term applies to many things. There are a number of things for which one can be held strictly liable. One of those things is child pronography, sex with a child to name two. It makes absolutely no difference that you thought the child was 18. You are still liable if it is a child you created porn with or that you had sex with.

Children lie all the time about their ages. That does not remove the guilt for a crime against that child which was committed by an adult. That is why strict liability attaches in many cases involving children.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability

Steve · #**133** (**permalink**) 07-07-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunshine

It is you who does not comprehend. You have yet to understand one legal term I have posted and I have gone to the sources that simplify it so anyone can understand.

It would seem that now you are not aware of the legal term 'strict liability.' This term applies to many things. There are a number of things for which one can be held strictly liable. One of those things is child pronography, sex with a child to name two. It makes absolutely no difference that you thought the child was 18. You are still liable if it is a child you created porn with or that you had sex with.

Children lie all the time about their ages. That does not remove the guilt for a crime against that child which was committed by an adult. That is why strict liability attaches in many cases involving children.

Strict liability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You really have nothing of relevance to say anymore, do you? You just want to blabber on about things that don’t really pertain to this case.

You dodged my question, right up until I called you on the carpet for it. Then, obediently, you answered up.

To the point, though, why was she charged with fucking computer crimes? Why wasn’t she charged with murder? Because she didn’t murder the girl, that’s why. I’m pretty sure the DA in that town is a Helluva’ lot smarter than you, and has the resources to properly prosecute a case, despite what some ambulance chaser (at best) might have to say about it.

Whatever you say about “strict liability” here means nothing, really, because it wasn’t a factor in the case brought against her.

I hope this woman walks off scott-free, just because it’ll make your fucking head explode…

drgoodtrips · #**134** (**permalink**) 07-07-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunshine

It is you who does not comprehend. You have yet to understand one legal term I have posted and I have gone to the sources that simplify it so anyone can understand.

It would seem that now you are not aware of the legal term 'strict liability.' This term applies to many things. There are a number of things for which one can be held strictly liable. One of those things is child pronography, sex with a child to name two. It makes absolutely no difference that you thought the child was 18. You are still liable if it is a child you created porn with or that you had sex with.

Children lie all the time about their ages. That does not remove the guilt for a crime against that child which was committed by an adult. That is why strict liability attaches in many cases involving children.

Strict liability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're actually kind of proving Steve's point rather than issuing any sort of refutation. If strict liability applies to offences regarding children, then MySpace cannot avoid complicity by virtue of the fact that she lied about her age when signing up for their site.

If it doesn't apply, then your post is a non sequitur, since crazy-mom was fully aware that the girl she was tormenting was a child.

Steve · #**135** (**permalink**) 07-07-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

You're actually kind of proving Steve's point rather than issuing any sort of refutation. If strict liability applies to offences regarding children, then MySpace cannot avoid complicity by virtue of the fact that she lied about her age when signing up for their site.

If it doesn't apply, then your post is a non sequitur, since crazy-mom was fully aware that the girl she was tormenting was a child.

Shine just likes to run off at the mouth sometimes...

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode