The facts of this case also demonstrate the shortcomings in federal and state cyberstalking laws, particularly those which require the making of a threat. The whole point of stalking is that it often doesn’t involve overt threats; it’s the pattern of harassment combined with the victim’s distress that constitute the crime.

Between you, me, and the wall, I don’t think that’s the case. I think she’s guilty as hell…but I think the prosecutors are smart not to chance setting a potentially permanent precedent with a case they’re not totally certain they can win. Going with a lesser charge they can make stick is the smart thing, particularly since it has its own rather stiff penalties.

wgs last blog post..Smackdown the way it should be done.

The vagueness sets in when we start dilly-dallying about whether that person should be held responsible only for “foreseeable” consequences, or whether they should be held accountable for all consequences stemming from their course of action.

In the Drew case, it’s hard to argue that Megan’s suicide wasn’t the direct result of Drew’s actions. Remember, Lori Drew knew that Megan had been on anti-depressants and had seen a counselor previously: they’d taken the girl on camping trips with them and Drew had had to administer anti-depressants to Megan during that trip. So she KNEW of Megan’s emotionally fragile state.

I’d say that makes it pretty darned hard for her to argue she had no idea such a thing could happen in response to her conduct.

The mom in me wants to see this woman punished and laws in place to protect other children from having this happen to them. What a tragedy for this family!

At the same time, the libertarian in me wonders how a law could be written to address this without the unintended consequences so characteristic of our reactionary law-making.

Lisas last blog post..Need A Healthy Snack?

When will parents realize that sometimes your kids won’t see you as the cool one, and won’t see you as their best friend, if you’re doing your job as a parent?

Drunkbunnys last blog post..Adoption 3: Less Rights, More Responsibilities

I worry that depressed and angry teens will see this and begin to see suicide as a way to get others to get revenge on those who hurt you. Teens already have an “I’ll show you!” mentality at times. Seeing this might cause emotionally unbalanced teens to say, “You hurt me, so I’ll kill myself and everyone will hate you until the day you die!”

Drunkbunnys last blog post..Adoption 3: Less Rights, More Responsibilities

Yes, I can, and as I said above, it’s none too soon.

wgs last blog post..Catastrophe

I’m still of the opinion that some of Lori Drew’s conduct fits under the heading of (at least in Oregon it would) menacing and/or harassment. There are two big problems, however, that legislation is hard-pressed to address (in my admittedly layman’s opinion – Kate, you’re the attorney here, so correct me on any of this if I’m off base).

1) Accountability in a legal sense depends on being able to prove, without any doubt, that the person committing an act is the same person being accused of doing so. That’s hard to do when it’s a pseudonymous identity behind the keys, unless the authorities are able to actually examine the electronic paper trail left on the hard drive of the accused….which they often can’t do because of the reasonable belief standard required to obtain a search warrant for it. Add to that the fact that social networking can be done from any place with an Internet connection, and you have a recipe for all sorts of anonymous abuse.

2) The other wrinkle in this is that state or nationality lines are often, or usually, blurred when dealing with the Internet. The doctrine of states’ sovereignty prevents a lot of communication and cooperation between states in this case – as a parallel example, well-informed deadbeat dads from Oregon often go to one of three other states in the US to live because they know they won’t be pursued for child support there.

I think the only real solution to this, unfortunately, is federal legislation to level the playing field, so to speak, and it needs to be twofold.

First, no more of the “well it’s my account, but I wasn’t using it, it was so-and-so” defense. If it’s your Internet account or your social network ID, then the bullying is your responsibility whether you actually did it or not, much like being an accomplice after the fact to a capital crime. The actual perpetrator, of course, is also responsible unless that can’t be established….in which case, if somebody used your account to commit a crime, God help you.

The second thing is that committing a crime across state boundaries needs to have a penalty associated with the harsher statute in whichever state is involved. If, for example, I were to hack into a computer system and steal money in Kansas, then the prosecution has its choice, by federal law, which state’s statutes apply. This may be the case already for some crimes – my point is, if there’s a statute that covers it in one state, but not in the other, it plugs that little loophole nicely.

wgs last blog post..Catastrophe