After reading the New York Times story of 15 year old high school freshman Pheobe Prince’s suicide, and the resultant arrest of two boys and four girls, ages 16 to 18, I was left with a wholly unsatisfied sense.
“The investigation revealed relentless activities directed toward Phoebe to make it impossible for her to stay at school,” Ms. Scheibel said. The conduct of those charged, she said, “far exceeded the limits of normal teenage relationship-related quarrels.”
But nowhere in the story are we told what these six student/defendants did. Despite my natural inclination to take District Attorney Elizabeth D. Scheibel word as gospel, self-serving conclusory characterizations aren’t exactly what a thoughtful reader would find acceptable. At least not this reader.
The horror of a child’s suicide, any child’s suicide, is undeniable, but irrelevant to the question of whether the conduct of others is criminal. The key is the conduct, not the way a prosecutor can characterize it without revealing an iota of substance. That the media reported such crap, without demanding facts in place of adjectives and hyperbole, is a shame. There is absolutely nothing in this article that distinguishes whether the conduct involved was mere bullying, as children often do, that inexplicably pushed one young girl over the edge, or something that should be recognized as criminal. Without hard information, there was no way I, as a reader, could tell.
Apparently, others did not have the problem with the story that I did. Ann Althouse, for instance, read something in the story that I must have missed:
Of course, it’s terrible when a young person commits suicide. And a suicide may have chosen self-murder because of the bad relationships in her environment. But if we don’t favor arresting people who are very mean to people who don’t commit suicide, why would we favor these arrests when someone does commit suicide?
So this is merely a case of very mean students and a young person who chose “self-murder?” I read the story again. Clearly, I must be missing something, as I see nothing whatsoever to support this conclusion. A glaring hole in the story again, but nothing to suggest that the students charged had engaged in conduct that fell outside the purview of the criminal law.
Is it possible that Althouse is absolutely right? You bet. Is it possible that she is dead wrong? You bet. What’s troubling is the rush to judgment, facts be damned. I sense a trend developing. And it gets worse, as Lawprof Ann reaches for the disincentive rationale to support her assumption.
Assume you are a teenager contemplating suicide. If you knew the 9 kids at school who were meanest to you would get criminally prosecuted if you killed yourself, would you be more likely to kill yourself or less? I don’t know enough about the psychology of suicide to answer my own question, but my intuitive sense is that self-murderers — or some self-murderers — intend to deal a severe blow to the people they leave behind. And knowing your enemies will be prosecuted might spur you on.
I’m not shrink, but neither is Ann. Still, I don’t think teenagers are likely to commit suicide because they can exact revenge on people who were mean to them. It seems that suicide, or self-murder as Althouse calls it, is a bit more extreme and that getting people you don’t like in trouble is not going to play a motivating role. If a teen commits suicide, there’s a bigger problem underlying it.
I take no issue with Althouse’s questioning the meaning of the empty allegations of the Northwestern District Attorney. I question them as well. But I don’t, and can’t, reach any conclusion about whether a prosecution is warranted without knowing something about the underlying conduct. I would love to join Althouse in condemning this prosecution based not upon the commission of criminal offenses, but being mean followed by the horror of suicide. But without facts, I just can’t. And I’m sorry that Ann can.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Is there a place to get the facts? My thought: is the behavior that leads to murder of others before suicide criminal as well?? I mean how were the kids that shot up their school/teachers/peers before they “self Murdered” treated that lead them to their behavior? Makes me sad that there is such anger out there, especially with KIDS… SIGH!
“I’m not shrink, but neither is Ann.”
But I am. I knew if I hung around long enough, my skills might actually be relevant. 🙂
“Still, I don’t think teenagers are likely to commit suicide because they can exact revenge on people who were mean to them.”
Teenagers (and adults) do commit suicide for revenge in at least some cases, Scott. I’ll spare you the examples.
Since I don’t know the facts of this case and I can’t speculate about the mental health of someone I’ve never examined, I’ll just say as a general/hypothetical: if a student is unable to get help/relief from harassment they are experiencing as relentless and their parents’ efforts to get them relief are unsuccessful, then suicide may reflect a sense of hopelessness that they cannot and will not be able to escape ongoing harassment but it could also reflect anger/revenge motives towards the harassers as in “Let’s see how you feel NOW, you bastards.”
As to criminal charges (your department): most states already criminalize harassment, don’t they? If so, why is it a surprise to anyone that Massachusetts’ laws would be applied in this case? I understand those who want to protect free speech and not criminalize it, but we already criminalize some forms of it, so what’s different here?
I defer to you on the psych stuff. As for your harassment question, we still need to have some clue what the conduct was that they are calling harassment. Without that, it’s just a word. Maybe it’s harassment and may it’s not. It’s meaningless without facts.
There are accurate reports via the AP, there is a long history about this girl after her family immigrated from Ireland. She had full pop cans thrown at her (aggravated battery), was hit numerous time (simple battery), and there are allegations of stat rape, where details have not been released. These are crimes, and should have been handled earlier, one of the bullies had been charged with a similar crime last year(this was one of the girls).
Suicide is not a revenge plot for most people (my own sister committed suicide), but people can be triggered, especially when the situation seems impossible. Her parents had spoken to school officials, who did nothing to protect her. Too, we have to remember that this family is from a country different than ours, where bullying in school would never reach the criminal level (I’m also a dual Irish-American citizen). The suicide is not a crime, the things that predate it are, and need to be prosecuted (and yes, I’m a public defender).
While the statutory rape angle still could use some fleshing out, physical assaults, with or without cola, are certainly real and prosecutable. It’s certainly beginning to look like Professor Althouse has not merely jumped the gun, but jumped the wrong way. It’s definitely disconcerting that a lawprof would prefer to condemn the prosecution before learning the basic facts of the case.
I think that you are bullying Professor Althouse because she chose to write a post that is better suited for a law exam. She makes an assumption about the facts, and sets up a hypothetical. I say bullying because she mostly disclaims that she is leaving the real world and going to her ivory tower to pontificate.
I agree with your take on the substance of her post though. And I found her post unsettling for another reason. There are other crimes (i.e. domestic violence, child abuse, fraud)where the crime may get the media’s and prosecutor’s attention because the victim committed “self-murder.”
I just hope Professor Althouse doesn’t commit self-murder so that you will be prosecuted for your bullying and to justify her theory. Step back from the ledge Professor Althouse!
I would feel awful if my post drove her to do something extreme. Especially if it was just to get revenge on me. I’m not worth it.
“I would love to join Althouse in condemning this prosecution based not upon the commission of criminal offenses, but being mean followed by the horror of suicide. But without facts, I just can’t. And I’m sorry that Ann can.”
It’s ironic that you restrain yourself from condemning the prosecutor because you don’t have all the facts but then you condemn me for a condemnation that I, in fact, did not make. Reread my words. I never leap beyond the facts I know. My post is carefully written and deserves careful reading, especially by someone who is taking a superior attitude about being careful.
I reread your post, and agree that you did, indeed, write it carefully. By that, I mean that you gave (and giving you the credit for careful writing) , and intended to give, the impression while parsing your words sufficiently to create plausible deniability of their meaning. It was very artfully done, as shown by the impression given to your readers as demonstrated by the comments. I will give you enough credit to believe that you accomplished exactly what you intended to accomplish.
You are right. I misread your post. It does not say what I’ve attributed to you. You were very careful indeed.
Supposition isn’t what any person associated with law should do. Certainly, play the scene out in its various ways in your head. But until you know the details, you ought not comment at all, law professor or not.