Judge Throws Out MySpace-Suicide Conviction, Protects Right to Emotional Cruelty
Posted by Enrique on 09.03.2009
Sending a message
You may recall the sordid case of Lori Drew. A few years ago, Ms. Drew created a fictitious MySpace account that drove a 13-year-old girl to kill herself. Federal authorities prosecuted Drew for "cyberbullying" and a jury found her guilty of three misdemeanors related to unauthorized computer access. But rather than sentence Ms. Drew Last week, District Judge George Wu threw out the convictions.
Most people would agree that Lori Drew's behavior was detestable, and she should face some sort of penalty. However, one of the consequences of living in a free society is some reprehensible actions are not (and shouldn't be) crimes. While we may be disgusted by Drew, we should be grateful that everyone's right to engage in emotionally cruel behavior has been upheld.
The story so far…
Worst person in the world?
It's not clear exactly what led Drew to engage in a conspiracy to harass a young girl barely on the other side of puberty. Apparently, Drew's daughter Sarah had been friends with a girl from the neighborhood named Megan Meier since fourth grade. At one time the girls were close enough that Megan accompanied the Drews on family outings. But by the time the girls were teenagers, their relationship became highly volatile. Anyone who has female teenage children is probably familiar with how badly friendships can sour at that age. (I remember my sister having dramatic, teary contretemps with certain acquaintances when she was in the throes of adolescence.)
For whatever reason, Lori and Sarah decided they wanted to hurt Megan's feelings, presumably because of some real or imagined slight by Megan toward Sarah. They set up a MySpace account under the name "Josh Evans," an attractive 16-year-old boy who flirted with Megan. After a month of online courtship, "Josh" said he didn't want to be friends with Megan anymore, and told her "the world would be a better place without you." About thirty minutes after receiving that message, Megan hanged herself. Drew's role in the affair is especially heinous considering she knew of Megan's emotional problems, and that the girl was taking antidepressants.
Although Drew was convicted in December, Judge Wu delayed sentencing for several months. (The maximum penalty sought by prosecutors was three years imprisonment, although a pre-sentencing report by probation officers recommended probation and a fine.) At a hearing in May, Wu heard from Megan's parents, who were understandably unwilling to forgive:
Tina Meier, who has launched a foundation in Megan's name and has traveled the country speaking out against cyberbullying, began her speech by recounting a number of details she had already mentioned at trial, prompting an impatient Wu to gently interrupt her, saying she had already testified to the facts.
Tina Meier closed her speech by saying, "This is not just about Megan Meier. This is about all of the people who go through [cyberbullying] on a daily basis."
She said that allowing Drew to go unpunished would send a message to other sufferers that they have no recourse.
Wu needed to punish Drew to send a message that "we are going to make a stand now for all the people who go through this."
While we sympathize with the Meiers' grief, we also must be prudent about the desire to send a message in the wake of a tragedy. In their anguish, the Meiers might not be the best judges of the appropriate level of punishment for Lori Drew. Even if what Drew did was monstrous, the fact is she didn't cause any physical harm to Megan Meier. We can all agree inflicting physical harm should be a criminal offense, but emotional harm is inherently subjective and thus difficult to quantify. One might say Megan killed herself because of Drew's actions, but one could just as easily say Megan killed herself because she was too sensitive.
Of course, just because emotional harm can't be objectively measured won't stop government authorities from trying. In this case, Drew was prosecuted under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Although the CFAA is primarily concerned with the unauthorized access of computers belonging to government or financial institutions, the legislation is written with such expansive reach that Drew's prosecutors used it to convict her because she violated MySpace's terms of service. If you think violating a private website's terms of service might be cause for a civil suit at most, you're probably a very reasonable person, and therefore not qualified to be a government lawyer. As you may be aware, the number of federal laws on the books are only slightly outnumbered by the ten-year deficit projections. The amount of potential crimes is so extensive, we all commit approximately three felonies a day without even knowing it, and we're only walking free based on the discretion/whims of federal prosecutors. Since Drew is such a repugnant figure, it made her an easy target for government lawyers looking to burnish their reputations.
Judge Wu must have recognized that. You can read his 32-page decision acquitting Drew here. The gist of his argument is on page 29: "Treating a violation of a website's terms of service, without more, to be sufficient to constitute "intentionally access[ing] a computer without authorization or exceed[ing] authorized access" would result in transforming section 1030(a)(2)(C) [of the CFAA] into an overwhelmingly overbroad enactment that would convert a multitude of otherwise innocent Internet users into misdemeanant criminals." Wu uses the example of a person providing misleading information on a dating website (e.g., saying "I'm full-bodied" when a more accurate description would be "I'm morbidly corpulent") who could be subject to criminal prosecution under CFAA if the local federal prosecutor happens to be in an uncharitable mood that day. I'm sure we can all agree we don't want to live in a world where we can be thrown in jail for embellishing our eHarmony profiles.
When our freedoms are eroded, they won't be in the form of a person whose conduct is unobjectionable – they will be in the form of someone like Lori Drew, whose conduct was deplorable. Since federal prosecutors have no disincentive to overreach in their authority, particularly in cases with a high level of media attention, we should be thankful Judge Wu had the good sense to show restraint in this case. It's understandable the Meiers wanted authorities to send a message. In this case, the message sent was that prosecutors should be more circumspect about policing emotional cruelty. It was the right message.
You guys need to try and stay current. This story is days old.
Posted By: Jason (Guest) on September 03, 2009 at 12:14 PM
I love it when you dig up stories that fly under big news. Kudos Enrique.
Posted By: feedback rulez (Guest) on September 03, 2009 at 12:14 PM
We have certain freedoms. The right to repeatedly harass someone is not one of them.
Posted By: Scott B (Guest) on September 03, 2009 at 01:00 PM
This was a great article Enrique. Sometimes people do terrible things that aren't against the law, and the only punishment will be the weight upon their conscience.
Posted By: Good job (Guest) on September 03, 2009 at 01:05 PM
Enrique, are you in favor of a civil trial on behalf of the family of the deceased girl against the woman who committed the deception?
Posted By: correction (Guest) on September 03, 2009 at 01:52 PM
I feel sorry for the dead girls' parents and all butwhat is it with kids today that they are unable to deal with any kind of pressure? I was bullied and picked on almost every day from early elementary school all the way through the end of high school. I never even considered shooting up my school or suicide. kids today are babied and coddled WAY too much. Mommy and Daddy need to tell their kids that the world is NOT fair, not everyone gets to be a movie star, and sooner or later, they will fail at something
Posted By: dan (Guest) on September 03, 2009 at 02:17 PM
"butwhat is it with kids today that they are unable to deal with any kind of pressure?"
She was on anti-depressants, which probably means she had a physical brain disorder.
Posted By: J.D. Dunn (Registered) on September 03, 2009 at 04:33 PM
It was also odd that a Federal Prosecutor in California pursued a case which occurred in St. Charles County, Missouri between two people that live across street from each other. State and local prosecutors did not see what Meier did as criminal, but a prosecutor in California did. The Meier lady and her family have been punished. They were run from the neighborhood by neighbors starting fires in their yard, etc.... They couldn't go anywhere without somebody getting in their face. I don't know where they moved to, but I assure you they have been punished.
Posted By: AdmChesterMynutz (Guest) on September 03, 2009 at 04:38 PM
Dan, it really doesn't have to do with parents coddling or smothering. Sure, you didn't want to kill someone or yourself, but your examples are unfounded. The VTECH and Columbine gunmen were, not bullied teens, but more over mentally deranged/sociopathic people. You can argue that bullying does that to you, but I've know more sociopathic people who were not bullied than bullied. Sure, some will submit to bullying and rage out, but that more of NEGLECTION of attention than of smothering.
I believe that the hierarchy of a high school is possibly the most cruelist and unfair system I've seen. I wasn't bullied in HS, but I've seen people get away with a lot worse than what I could imagine. Life is definately not fair, but it isn't so one-sided that it would make a person think that he/she never had a shot at life to begin with.
Posted By: Guest#7952 (Guest) on September 03, 2009 at 04:53 PM
Something Dan is forgetting: this teenage girl was being bullied by a PARENT. If this had been one teen doing it to another, maybe I could see your point. But a parent of a teen should know better than to toy with the emotions of a young girl and then crush her heart for no other reason than spite. That should be the issue here: should adults be held to higher standards when it comes to how they deal with and ultimately manipulate children? If this mother had hired an actor to portray a boy interested in this girl, then instructed him to break up with her and tell her the world would be better off without her, and then she killed herself - does the mother have any responsibility for that girl's death?
Sorry, but I have trouble understanding how this con game is any different from what Bernie Madoff did. Should he be held responsible if people who are penniless because of him decide suicide is their only option?
Posted By: correction (Guest) on September 03, 2009 at 06:01 PM
My rights only extend so far until it takes away the rights of others. The children who did this need to be punished. They used their right of free speech to harass a child which lead to her death. SOme of their actions could be construed as involuntary Manslaughter.
Posted By: Adam J. Bulava (Guest) on September 03, 2009 at 07:30 PM
I still don't understand why she wasn't charged with conspiracy to committ murder...she did tell the girl to off herself, and she did. Mission accomplished. The fact that this "mother" gets to walk free is bullshit when she DIRECTLY contributed to someone killing themselves.
Abuse is abuse, no matter what form it takes.
Posted By: Ramsey (Guest) on September 03, 2009 at 07:59 PM
Dan is completely correct. Anti-depressants? You mean those little pills parents throw at their kids because their parenting sucks? Amazing how suicide rates seem to be going up and up right alongside the sales of these pills that Pharmaceutical companies are churning out. First lets create a ailment, like of say A.D.D., or as we used to call it "being a brat". Ok now lets create a pill for it with some pretty disgusting side effects. Funny how in the 1980s suicide rates were much lower and Pfizer hadnt forced its way into our homes. Any for those who are still sticking with the "keep your kid in a eggshell" method of parenthood, maybe the mother couldve monitored what her daughter was doing on a networking site notorious for perverts and sexual deviants. Now excuse me, my restless leg syndrome meds are making my ears bleed while giving me increased urges to gamble.
Posted By: Redhotrash (Guest) on September 03, 2009 at 09:22 PM
"It was also odd that a Federal Prosecutor in California pursued a case which occurred in St. Charles County, Missouri between two people that live across street from each other. State and local prosecutors did not see what Meier did as criminal, but a prosecutor in California did. The Meier lady and her family have been punished. They were run from the neighborhood by neighbors starting fires in their yard, etc.... They couldn't go anywhere without somebody getting in their face. I don't know where they moved to, but I assure you they have been punished.
Posted By: AdmChesterMynutz (Guest) on September 03, 2009 at 04:38 PM"
When you say "Meier lady", I assume you are referring to Lori Drew, not the victim's mother right??
Posted By: Guest#0412 (Guest) on September 03, 2009 at 10:19 PM
I'm split on this story. I think this lady deserves to spend at least some time in jail, if she was in on this whole thing. When its two kids the same age its different, but she is an adult and should try and act like it.
But I also agree with Dan, that kids are TOO sensitive today. It seems like for every problem a kid has, there is some kinda medication for it. Growing up(and I'm not but 25) I can't remember any kids my age being on medicine for anything like depression or ADHD. Infact I think both of them are bullshit. I think kids wouldnt be depressed if their parents spent a little more time with them. Same for ADHD, being Hyper sounds like a good way to scream "I need attention." All Im getting at is that every problem is NOT solved by medicine, nor should it be.
I feel bad for the Meiers, but I have to believe that maybe, if they were around a little more for their daughter, this wouldn't have happened. I mean really, who leaves a 13 year old girl who is on depression medicine at home by herself?(I assume she was by herself, or someone would have heard her attempting to hang herself). Most(if not all) depressions medicines have listed as side effects "Suicidal Thoughts", which should be a red flag to parents everywhere, if they are doing their jobs.
Seriously though, why would a grown women think it would be smart, appropriate, okay, whatever to mess with a 13 year old girl though? How cruel can you be?
Posted By: JWestmoreland (Guest) on September 03, 2009 at 11:40 PM
I can't see how such behavior is not against some law somewhere, but perhaps the legal system hasn't yet caught up with the technology.
However, that does not necessarily mean that Ms. Drew might not be held accountable in a civil court. At the very least, the family could try for a wrongful death suit. They might not get much out of it, but at least they could hold her accountable to the law and get some sort of closure that way (much like the Goldmans did with OJ).
Posted By: Michael L (Guest) on September 03, 2009 at 11:59 PM
very very good article enrique. I may not agree with everything but you make excellent points and I enjoyed reading the article. Keep it up.
Posted By: mike (Guest) on September 04, 2009 at 12:30 AM
This article seems to imply that only physical harm can be made unlawful. I disagree, emotional harm by way of severe bullying or harrassment can be just as damaging, as proved in this case. It may well be harder to quantify and prove, but I believe there must be an attempt to police the clearly excessive examples like this.
Can we not tell the difference between an internet slanging match and a calculated, deliberate campaign of harrassment and humiliation?
Posted By: Pff (Guest) on September 04, 2009 at 03:32 AM
"I can't see how such behavior is not against some law somewhere, but perhaps the legal system hasn't yet caught up with the technology. "
Almost positive they passed a law awhile back making it against the law to cyberbully here in Missouri.
Posted By: Guest#9963 (Guest) on September 04, 2009 at 05:25 AM
There really isn't any criminal culpability here. Words are merely that: words. However, I'd definitely be in favor of a civil suit, at which point you could bring up the following torts: wrongful death, intentional infliction of emotional distress, pain and suffering, negligent infliction of emotional distress, etc. The civil litigation system is there to enforce and punish (via punitive damages) those acts that are not criminal.
Posted By: Maine Law (Guest) on September 04, 2009 at 08:51 AM
I agree with Enrique 100% that this is not a criminal issue. However there should be and most likely will be a civil case in which case they will claim negligent behaviour on the mother and they will and should win the case. these people may be despicable but they are not criminals. that is what the civil courts are there for.
oh and to the poster who said that they had been punished because they had to move, sorry but thats not enough because the family should be compensated.
Posted By: stronelis (Guest) on September 04, 2009 at 09:38 AM
I'm split on this story. I think this lady deserves to spend at least some time in jail, if she was in on this whole thing. When its two kids the same age its different, but she is an adult and should try and act like it.
But I also agree with Dan, that kids are TOO sensitive today. It seems like for every problem a kid has, there is some kinda medication for it. Growing up(and I'm not but 25) I can't remember any kids my age being on medicine for anything like depression or ADHD. Infact I think both of them are bullshit. I think kids wouldnt be depressed if their parents spent a little more time with them. Same for ADHD, being Hyper sounds like a good way to scream "I need attention." All Im getting at is that every problem is NOT solved by medicine, nor should it be.
I feel bad for the Meiers, but I have to believe that maybe, if they were around a little more for their daughter, this wouldn't have happened. I mean really, who leaves a 13 year old girl who is on depression medicine at home by herself?(I assume she was by herself, or someone would have heard her attempting to hang herself). Most(if not all) depressions medicines have listed as side effects "Suicidal Thoughts", which should be a red flag to parents everywhere, if they are doing their jobs.
Seriously though, why would a grown women think it would be smart, appropriate, okay, whatever to mess with a 13 year old girl though? How cruel can you be?
Posted By: JWestmoreland (Guest) on September 03, 2009 at 11:40 PM
The strange thing is Jwest I'm two years younger than you and I could probably name two dozen children I went to school with with ADD/ADHD that were on medication and probably another dozen plus on anti-depressants.
I also agree with the poster who says parents need to teach their childre that the world isnt fair. My parents did and I turned out just fine as did their parents.
Half ass parenting is the cause for way too many issues out there. The simple solution? Dont have children; they sell condoms and other forms of birth control. Hell you can also just say no, maybe your children wont run amok.
Posted By: son of pillman (Guest) on September 04, 2009 at 10:40 AM
Guest#7952, the gunmen from columbine were not what you described they were your run of the mill teenagers, i knew 2-3 of them for about 3 years before what they did online, and you wouldnt even think they were capable of what happened. im sure some puberty, agression and maybe just maybe a lil bullying happened but they were smart middle class kids..kids will do dumb things.. the parent didnt hold the noose while the child tied the knot, what the lady did was horrible and she should have her vagina sewn shut.. she may not have been punished by courts but i am sure she is getting it from her neighbors whereever she stays now and for many days to come..
Posted By: reveal (Guest) on September 04, 2009 at 10:52 AM
Perhaps parents shouldn't raise their kids to be so soft.
Cyberbullying? Give me an f-ing break, you can stop a conversation at any time, and on another note, she was "smitten with this kid from school." She never ONCE talked to/approached him about their ongoing "romance"?
Either way, perhaps whatever happened to this girl is for the better, as it's just "nature over nuture."
Posted By: That Random Guy (Guest) on September 04, 2009 at 11:01 AM
Why is this different from plain old harassment? Just because she did it via the web makes it OK?
If I walked up to a person I knew was depressed and told them to kill themselves, and they did, shouldn't I be punished? Without my actions they'd almost certainly be alive. Without Drew's actions, that girl would still be alive. What's the difference?
At the very least it should be manslaughter, particularly as they KNEW what buttons to push due to her depression.
Hopefully they get run out of whichever town they try to settle.
Posted By: dennett316 (Guest) on September 04, 2009 at 11:16 AM
That Random Guy,
wow.................
Posted By: reveal (Guest) on September 04, 2009 at 11:24 AM
"The strange thing is Jwest I'm two years younger than you and I could probably name two dozen children I went to school with with ADD/ADHD that were on medication and probably another dozen plus on anti-depressants."
No wonder so many folks think Uncle Sugar can solve their problems. Health-probably is more expensive when purchasing 5 scripts a month to keep the little shavers in-line.
Posted By: AdmChesterMynutz (Guest) on September 04, 2009 at 12:15 PM
I am on Drew's side all the way and I'm happy to hear about this. I don't think what she did was reprehensible at all. It was actually pretty funny.
Posted By: Anonymous (Guest) on September 04, 2009 at 12:15 PM
perhaps they should have gone after her with assisted suicide charges, if anything it would have made a bigger slash when it hit the papers. If she doesn't serve any time in jail, I am all for her life being as hard possible for the rest of her life.
Posted By: mark (Guest) on September 04, 2009 at 12:43 PM
"Sometimes people do terrible things that aren't against the law, and the only punishment will be the weight upon their conscience."
Great quote. I agree and couldn't say it any better. I due hope that Ms. Drew is a pariah in her community. She's a pretty sick woman.
Posted By: A. Shakoor (Guest) on September 04, 2009 at 01:36 PM
ADD/ADHD is just a cop out for crappy parenting. I agree that there should be no prosecution of the Drew lady, and the suicidal girl is just a sad loss. the parents are going to try to blame Drew for their own lame parenting.
teach your kids to toughen up, or they'll get destroyed in the real world.
Posted By: Pete S (Guest) on September 04, 2009 at 02:13 PM
There are two thing I can tell from most of the comments; there are very few parents on here, and very few people that have ever dealt with depression.
First, as a step parent of four wonderful kids, I can tell you that there are times, especially when the kids grow older, that you leave them alone for a while, even if they are on anti-depressants or other medications. Errands need to be run, trips need to be made, and parents cannot be staring at thier kids 24/7. The family was actually downstairs preparing dinner when Meghan hung herself in the closet. No amount of good parenting can stop events like this.
And as far as "kids need to toughen up" - there's no "toughening up" when you have clinical depression. It is a physical defect in your brain that causes a low amount of neurotransmitters be floating around - the happy chemicals that keep you feeling normal. Without them, and even on antidepressants, a person can not just get over things.
While it is true that Lori Drew should not have been convicted under the crimes she was accused of, she should ahve to face criminal charges. Emotional child abuse is still child abuse under many state laws, and psychologists will attest that emotional abuse is every bit as damaging as physical abuse. I am unsure why they decided not to try her under child abuse laws. I can only hope that the civil case brings some justice to this - yes, I'm going to call it - crime.
Posted By: Gizmo (Guest) on September 04, 2009 at 02:48 PM
We do have laws that distinguish interaction between adults and minors. Had this woman posed as a teenage boy and propositioned the girl, she would be convicted of a crime and no one would second guess it. But because she merely exploited knowledge of the girl's condition to drive her to suicide, that's okay? I agree with Enrique that the law used here was the wrong one, and the judge's rationale was reasonable. But to say this shouldn't be illegal is absurd.
Posted By: Shockmaster (Guest) on September 04, 2009 at 02:52 PM
'This article seems to imply that only physical harm can be made unlawful. I disagree, emotional harm by way of severe bullying or harrassment can be just as damaging, as proved in this case. It may well be harder to quantify and prove, but I believe there must be an attempt to police the clearly excessive examples like this.
Can we not tell the difference between an internet slanging match and a calculated, deliberate campaign of harrassment and humiliation?'
Emotional harm? Good lord...
They passed a Senate bill into law because of this. What's next? Federal law mandating that you can't say mean things to each other after you break up with your girlfriend/boyfriend? 'Internet harassment' is like saying you're getting harassed by someone on television. If you don't like it, turn it off.
Face-to-face harassment and insults are MUCH more 'emotionally damaging' than anything that can happen to you on the internet. Anyone arguing otherwise would be hardpressed to prove otherwise. Should that be stopped to? This is such a slippery slope that it's really hard to advocate any legal punishment at all.
The woman will never be able to be viewed as a decent person by society ever again, and that's enough for me. Someone should have taught the little girl that hanging herself isn't a healthy alternative. Stupid parents.
Posted By: The Man (Guest) on September 04, 2009 at 03:26 PM
reveal, I said they were sociopaths, not anti-social. What you said basically describes them as sociopathic.
Posted By: Guest#2734 (Guest) on September 04, 2009 at 03:38 PM
What's the famous quote about yelling fire in a crowded theater? You're not physically harming anyone but what you're doing creates a situation in which a larger community panics and inadvertent harm is caused. This is much more malicious, with an actual intent to harm someone. The woman knew the girl had emotional problems and exploited that to get the girl to kill herself. If an adult did that to another adult that would be considered a crime. The only reason people are claiming this isn't is because the D.A. was dumb enough to bring the issue of cyberbullying into the court.
I really hope the parents of the girl that committed suicide file a civil suit (if they already haven't), because there's nothing more I'd like to see than this woman lose everything.
Posted By: Guest#3492 (Guest) on September 04, 2009 at 03:53 PM
"'Internet harassment' is like saying you're getting harassed by someone on television. If you don't like it, turn it off."
BAHAHAHAHAHA! That's awesome! Never thought of it like that, but so very true!
Posted By: bestnameever (Guest) on September 04, 2009 at 06:27 PM
great piece! The judge made the right call and you did a great service by bringing this issue to light...I'm a newsaholic and haven't seen this story...thanks.
Posted By: romano (Guest) on September 04, 2009 at 06:28 PM
For all the dumb asses that think ADD is fake, think again. There is a legit chemical imbalance in the brain when people do have it and not making it up. However, it does affect roughly 2-4% of the population though basic exercise is a much better cure than drugs.
Posted By: BKS (Guest) on September 04, 2009 at 07:59 PM
Good article.
I have to agree, children today are being so overprotected, with sex harrassment crimes cause your 4 year old grabbed a 5 year olds ass, to not being able to spank your child without risking abuse charges, parents waiting for the bus rather than the kid walking home and so much more.
When I was a kid...
I got the belt from my dad...when I earned it. Was never abuse, I crossed a line, got my butt red, and it was over, went to my room, cried but it was over. It worked for 1000s of years, not its abuse.
Bullying. The best lesson I ever learned was the first time I got my ass kicked on the playground. I learned to fight back and its a cold, cruel world out there. Kids today are so soft because of that.
Technology...kids know crap about anything thats not fed to them by the tv, computer, ipod, cell phone. How about some chalk, a cardboard box and some imagination.
I love all the advances in society, and have every toy, but when my girl makes a mistake (and in this case is an adult), she pays for it with her ass, and when we have children, will be the same way, spare the rod, spoil the child.
Teach them to stand up for themselves, be the best they can be and give them every tool to do so.
This whole case was stupid, the mother should be flogged if we still had that, but really, its not a crime. The civil case, sure, whatever, win 10m and collect it sometime in 2080. Gimme a break, the kid was soft, on drugs, and had issues. Too many kids are taking too many drugs, for this, that and the other. I barely take aspirin and the only thing i do is my my hypertension. I survive, am intellegent, and can live with a little bit of pain, not going to hang myself.
Oh well, rant over....
~Paul
Posted By: Guest#2930 (Guest) on September 05, 2009 at 04:01 AM
As much as I dislike noting differences that fit philosophical lines, I see a big pattern in these comments of conservative commentators somehow making this the victims fault for having a "fake disease" like depression and ADD/ADHD.
I believe there are a number of children that are misdiagnosed. For younger children, it is difficult to simply "interview them" or watch enough behavior for a doctor to make a proper diagnosis. As such, a lot of the diagnosis is a function of parental observation, which may be biased. With that said, my experience in education has shown me two things: (1) A LOT of kids that would have been swept under the rug with no marketable skillset due to their personality difficulties in the past are now caught and treated because they really have genuine problems and (2)you can not simply look at someone and tell what is going on in their heads.
This woman took a young girl that she knew was mentally sick and preyed upon her for revenge. That is depraved, and I think she deserves everything she gets within the fullest extent of the law. She is very fortunate that the law does not allow for criminal punishment.
Posted By: J. Alexander Mitchell (Guest) on September 05, 2009 at 08:46 AM
I love how armchair therapists are able to say the girl was soft when they don't even know the extent of her emotional issues. She could have been bipolar, suffered from clinical depression, or any number of other legit mental issues. I have a theory that people only skim articles like this to find the information they want to justify their own bias. I'm not trying to say I know anything about this case, because almost no one here does. So railing against kids being prescribed too many drugs doesn't really work if you don't know the specifics of the case.
And even going there, the old way of smacking a kid upside the head didn't apparently work either. You still had serial killers, mass murderers, robbery, theft, and crime. Children didn't turn out any better 20 years ago. They just ended up with a shit ton of emotional issues that they have to pay therapists to deal with today instead of managing when it was actually happening.
Posted By: Guest#7874 (Guest) on September 05, 2009 at 01:42 PM
The Internet is almost the last place in America where complete and total freedom exists, and we should keep it that way.
Did she put a gun to this girl's head? Stab her? No? Thrn she has nothing to go to trial for.
People need to get thicker skin. If today's teenagers hang themselves over something someone said on MySpace, there's no waaaay they'd be equipped to handle problems in the real world.
Basic lesson: people today, especially stupid emo teens, need to toughen up and face life's problems.
And don't give that bs about "oh, she was on medication." We've overdiagnosed and drugged-up as a nation. How shocking that a teenage girl has emotional issues! Guess what, it's called puberty and teen angst.
Posted By: Anonymous (Guest) on September 05, 2009 at 03:25 PM
Any adult who strikes a child is a pussy and a coward and unfit to be a parent. I love how the conservatives in this thread talk about how the parents didn't take enough time with the girl, then turn around and say that spanking and beating with a belt is perfectly fine parenting. Yeah, just beat the kid into submission - that'll teach 'em. Do you seriously think that if this girl had just been slapped a few times when she was 5 she wouldn't have killed herself? Would that have "toughened her up?" Assholes.
I know I'll get flamed for making such a statement, but I don't care - if you have to inflict physical pain (and don't give me the crap about not "crossing a line" - striking a child is ALWAYS crossing the line) then you've proven that you'd rather use violence than actually take the time to educate and guide your child. You're a monster, plain and simple.
Why do you think spankings stop when a kid, mostly guys, get to be teenagers? Because that same kid that was 3 feet tall and a few dozen pounds is now 6 feet tall and can kick your ass. You wouldn't hit another adult - why the hell do you think it's acceptable to hit YOUR OWN CHILD? Why in God's name would anyone ever cause pain for their own offspring??? Because the kid's crying? Because she's not "tough?" The real weak one is the parent that raises a hand to a child.
Sorry about the rant, but a former friend of mine talked about how his second wife (gotta love conservatives and their family values) would spank her daughter once a week "just to remind her what happens when she does something bad" - whether she had been bad or not. She was a monster, and he was just as bad for not stopping it. Hence him being an ex-friend. Cowards, the whole lot of them. You hit a kid, or you bully a kid, and you're an adult - you're a pussy, plain and simple.
Posted By: correction (Guest) on September 05, 2009 at 03:58 PM
The judge made the correct decision in this case. While Drew's actions were deplorable you can not convict her on the charges she was facing without convicting everyone else online that lies about things like:
age
sex
marital status
birthplace
occupation
etc
The internet can be a dangerous place. My question to the parents is "why weren't you monitoring your daughters online interactions knowing she has a mental disorder?"
I feel bad for her family but I do not believe the anonimity the internet provides should be on trial here.
Posted By: Fred (Guest) on September 05, 2009 at 05:13 PM
The judge made the correct decision in this case. While Drew's actions were deplorable you can not convict her on the charges she was facing without convicting everyone else online that lies about things like:
age
sex
marital status
birthplace
occupation
etc
The internet can be a dangerous place. My question to the parents is "why weren't you monitoring your daughters online interactions knowing she has a mental disorder?"
I feel bad for her family but I do not believe the anonimity the internet provides should be on trial here.
Posted By: Fred (Guest) on September 05, 2009 at 05:21 PM
“Sorry about the rant, but a former friend of mine talked about how his second wife (gotta love conservatives and their family values) would spank her daughter once a week "just to remind her what happens when she does something bad" - whether she had been bad or not. She was a monster, and he was just as bad for not stopping it. Hence him being an ex-friend. Cowards, the whole lot of them. You hit a kid, or you bully a kid, and you're an adult - you're a pussy, plain and simple.
Posted By: correction (Guest) on September 05, 2009 at 03:58 PM”
I know how you feel, a former friend of mine talked about how his third husband (gotta love liberals and their anti-anything American) would refuse to discipline their kids because it “interrupted their creativity which is more important than common sense ” – whether he was stealing shit or committing arson. He was said he was a nice guy, though, and he was a better person for not disciplining his kid when he hit another kid with a 2X4. Hence him being married to a guy. You refuse to hit a kid, when he is clearly an asshole – and you take it up the fudge train, plain and simple.
True story.
Posted By: BKS (Guest) on September 06, 2009 at 03:32 AM
"I know how you feel, a former friend of mine talked about how his third husband (gotta love liberals and their anti-anything American) would refuse to discipline their kids because it “interrupted their creativity which is more important than common sense ” – whether he was stealing shit or committing arson. He was said he was a nice guy, though, and he was a better person for not disciplining his kid when he hit another kid with a 2X4. Hence him being married to a guy. You refuse to hit a kid, when he is clearly an asshole – and you take it up the fudge train, plain and simple.
True story."
I realize that you probably think you're clever by turning the other dude's post into an ironic slag on liberals and gays but you failed. Miserably.
I don't care if you're conservative or liberal, smacking a child isn't any better for discipline than teaching. It doesn't matter if the kid is an asshole, would you smack an adult for throwing a temper tantrum (which they also do)? You might like to but you know it won't change their behavior. They'll only avoid the behavior when they think they might get smacked. Or worse. Growing up in a small community, I saw the children of abuse and violence, and they turned out to be the biggest assholes because they thought violence was a justified way to resolve a conflict. Or they realized it was an easy means to getting what they wanted. The irony is that if they got caught fighting/bullying they usually came to school the next day with a black eye because their parents didn't know any other way and/or were too stupid to show them that fighting was wrong.
Posted By: Guest#7640 (Guest) on September 06, 2009 at 04:28 PM
"I don't care if you're conservative or liberal, smacking a child isn't any better for discipline than teaching. It doesn't matter if the kid is an asshole, would you smack an adult for throwing a temper tantrum (which they also do)? You might like to but you know it won't change their behavior. They'll only avoid the behavior when they think they might get smacked. Or worse. Growing up in a small community, I saw the children of abuse and violence, and they turned out to be the biggest assholes because they thought violence was a justified way to resolve a conflict. Or they realized it was an easy means to getting what they wanted. The irony is that if they got caught fighting/bullying they usually came to school the next day with a black eye because their parents didn't know any other way and/or were too stupid to show them that fighting was wrong.
Posted By: Guest#7640 (Guest) on September 06, 2009 at 04:28 PM"
No, not really. Disciplining your children when they did something wrong is a good way; it worked for me and my family as I just entered my second year as a physics major and my brother has his own successful business. And whenever I see parents being punished for spanking their kids when their kid was acting like a bitch I wonder why do we have so many laws telling parents how they can discipline their children? We're essentially a nanny state with laws like that...
Posted By: BKS (Guest) on September 06, 2009 at 08:05 PM
So I say that if you hit a child you're a monster and a coward, and that makes me gay? Huh? I guess that's an attempt to make me seem wimpy and "flaming," although I'd argue that the real wuss is an adult who thinks it's fine to beat a child. Not sure what sex has to do with it, but whatever - for some it always comes down to that. Especially when talking about kids for some reason - so bizarre.
Please - let's hear from all of the folks like BKS who think it's acceptable to strike children when they're misbehaving. I want to hear the justification for why it's okay to hit a kid. I want to hear how spanking is okay, but slapping them across the face is "too far." Why? Well, because it doesn't leave a mark people can see when you spank a kid for one. Maybe punch them in the head? How about that? Boot to the gut? That'll shut 'em up. Like that guy who slapped a kid in front of a Walmart - how many of you cheered that child abuse? Think he would have slapped the mom if she was the one making a racket?
And ultimately the same point goes for this woman who bullied and abused this teenage girl. Does BKS think it's okay what she did? Did this girl "deserve" to be punished for hurting her daughter's feelings or whatever lame excuse she was giving?
Or does the woman deserve some kind of punishment for abusing a child by running a con on her?
Posted By: correction (Guest) on September 06, 2009 at 08:20 PM
Correction, see, this is exactly why I hate liberals; too overly sensitive.
First, Striking is what you do as boxer. I would never strike a child. I would, however, spank them. Spanking has existed for a long time and you want to know why? Because it works. For anyone who doesn't know, the ass is actually the best place to get shot because it's all fat and thus you don't have a chance of hurting something important, like your brain. By the way, very few people would consider hitting a hid in the head a good punishment. But no, liberals live in hyperbole where if you're against Muslim terrorist you're against Islam and if you support spanking/disciplining kids you support child abuse.
As for this case, I do hope the woman who caused gets something seeing as she went after a kid that wasn't hers because her daughter was a whinny bitch.
Posted By: BKS (Guest) on September 07, 2009 at 04:58 PM
You're using semantics. A spank is still a strike is still a hit. From the dictionary, the definition of strike:
"to deal a blow or stroke to (a person or thing), as with the fist, a weapon, or a hammer; hit."
The definition of spank:
"to strike (a person, usually a child) with the open hand, a slipper, etc., esp. on the buttocks, as in punishment."
I wasn't spanked or hit. My parents scolded me but never felt the urge to hit because they knew it didn't work. My mother's father was both physically and mentally abusive. She knew the purpose of hitting a child was to avoid dealing with a situation rather than actually confronting it. You hit a child because you're exasperated and don't know another way to respond. Yes, children aren't rational creatures but they still have some level of comprehension. They still understand when you tell them no and are forceful.
Posted By: Guest#8941 (Guest) on September 07, 2009 at 06:26 PM
Ha - spanking has been around a long time because it works? Yeah, and wife beating has been around just as long because it works too. Great logic there.
Guest is right - it's semantics. Hitting a child is hitting a child. Spanking across the buttocks is still hitting a defenseless child. When you say "oh, it's okay to spank on the bottom," then why not whip with a belt? Hey, your brain isn't in your thighs, so why not whip a child with a belt across the thighs? Just make sure they don't wear shorts around other people.
People spank because it's easy, and they do it because they're angry. Rather than being a mature adult and figuring out a way to deal with a problem child, they get pissed and smack the kid. In most cases they grab the kid hard by the arm, then slap their ass repeatedly, then either shove them away or turn them around to scream at them to stop doing it. It's not parenting, it's violence against a child because it's not obeying. You wouldn't slap a stranger on the ass to get what you want, so why do you think it's okay to do that to your child? And if it's alright to do it to a kid, why stop there? Maybe your girlfriend has been giving you some lip lately - you gonna put her in her place with a well-placed punch to the gut?
Much like with the torture "debate," too many people think that "some" violence is just fine if it gets results. Spanking is okay since it's on the butt and doesn't leave a mark, just like it's okay to waterboard a terror suspect since they're not really drowning and it doesn't leave a mark. When as Americans did we accept the how when we should have never excepted the why? In less confusing terms, it's not about HOW you hit your kid - why are you hitting your kid at all? Are you such a terrible parent you can't figure out another way to discipline a 5 year old that doesn't know any better?
Posted By: correction (Guest) on September 07, 2009 at 07:35 PM
You hear that, you typical conservatives, you spanking your kids you're doing the equivalent of torturing them. I should know, I have a degree in English and Philosophy I got online.
Best. Strawman. Argument. Ever.
Posted By: S. Guy (Guest) on September 08, 2009 at 02:38 AM
Some seem to be missing a few things. The internet yes a harsh place but what this lady did to the young girl spilled over into the real world... Cause EVERYONE has the internet now. She didnt just harass this kid 1 on 1. She spread lies to other kids to make them all talk bad abou the young girl.
The lies the old lady spread affected this girl at school.
Imagine your boss at work spreading lies about you and now everyone in the office is talking about you. Now also imagine that your 15 years old without a grasp of how the world really works. Would like going to that place everyday for the next 2-3 years.
All because some 40yr old woman preyed on a little girl.
Posted By: Guest#3633 (Guest) on September 08, 2009 at 03:40 AM
Apparently someone doesn't know what a strawman argument is.
Posted By: correction (Guest) on September 08, 2009 at 09:59 AM
Wow we have a lot of stupid people on this site-- it sort of makes me get over a lot of the anger I have at people's retarded opinions when I see how simply unintelligent many of you are... especially the way you paint it as though you were perfectly rational.
You want to make all behavior you don't approve of illegal, and don't even realize that the very definition of liberty is the ability to behave in a way others don't approve of.
Certainly your freedoms end where another person's nose ends, but we shouldn't be trying to legislate things so that people have to "be nice" to each other. Yes, legally you are allowed to be a douche bag. And that is how it should be.
And, no it's not saying there's no recourse or no punishment for those sorts of behaviors: THAT'S WHAT CIVIL COURT IS FOR. Settling disputes that are not crimes.
Posted By: M:-X (Guest) on September 08, 2009 at 01:40 PM
STAY CURRENT