Suicide of Megan Meier - Research Paper Example

? Suicide of Megan Meier Introduction It was on October 15, 2006 that Megan Meier received really unexpected and harsh messages from her boyfriend Josh, who ended the conversation by saying that “The world would be a better place without you”. Megan had been talking to Josh for quite some while. They met on MySpace and Megan instantly fell for this person, who surprisingly enough, did not have a cell phone or landline and had just moved into town. She loved talking to such a handsome boy as she had faced problems of obesity, depression and attention deficit disorder but this friendship was really boosting her self-esteem, something, which promoted her mother from allowing her daughter to spend her time on MySpace (Long, p. 28). When this relationship boosted, her self-esteem, those messages and then subsequent leakage of those messages to her friends, lowered her self-esteem to such a point where she decided to take her life by hanging herself. In the aftermath of events, it became apparent that “Josh” was the mother of a former female friend of Megan and that this family only lived four blocks away from Megan. A few months back, Megan and her friend had a quarrel and Lori Drew, her mother, decided to teach Megan a lesson by adding her through a fake MySpace profile (Tokunaga, p. 277). In the aftermath of Megan’s suicide, cyber bullying emerged as a serious issue and educational institutions, parents, teachers and even the law enforcement agencies felt the need to play their part in ensuring that such sad news does not come into the limelight ever again. However, naturally, many people felt disgusted and sickened at the actions of Lori Drew called that she should be prosecuted for her actions. The same led to a nation-wide debate on whether or not Lori Drew’s actions deserved prosecution. Many people shocked and perplexed by the actions of Lori began to raise their voice for Lori Drew prosecution. On the other hand, several critics began to question such demands and raised their concern that such calls would lead the nation to a slippery slope. According to its definition, prosecution refers to the process of a government attorney getting involved, charging, and trying the case against the accused. This paper is an attempt to explore and analyze the same question mentioned above. Discussion For charging someone with a particular crime, misdemeanor, felony, or offense, it is imperative that the court should find that person guilt of those actions. Furthermore, in case of serious crimes and convictions, people cannot be convicted in the absence of malice aforethought. This is the reason why people with mental illness, children, and minors do not receive strict punishments even for the most serious crimes since they are less likely to have malice aforethought and more likely not to understand or foresee the consequences of this action. The first and the foremost argument in favor of Lori Drew’s conviction or prosecution is that she, being an adult and mother or a daughter of the age of Megan, knew and understood the full weight of her decisions and went onto to bully and torture a young girl (Brenner & Megan, p. 15). The problem with cyber bullies is that in most occasions, it is almost impossible to prove that they foresaw or understood the implications or consequences of their actions. For example, in the case of Megan Meier, the cyber bully could only be prosecuted for bullying and could not be blamed for suicide. Nevertheless, the fact is that in this case, the cyber bully, the mom of Megan’s former friend, knew all about the consequences of her actions. That woman was well aware of the fact that Megan suffers from low self-esteem due to her previous obesity and has a history of depression (Bhat, p. 53). Furthermore, she also suffers from attention deficit disorder. That woman was well aware of all these facts and it would be apparent, even to a nonprofessional that any attempt at pushing the back of this girl against the wall would force this thirteen year old to take extreme measures. Regardless of knowing that Megan has had a disturbed and troubled childhood, during which, at one stage, she also toyed with the idea of suicide, that woman still bullied Megan and then used those conversations to defame the teenage girl. It is important to understand that there already are laws present, which have made it illegal for people to engage in slander, libel, harassment, and assault. The only change in these laws, which is needed, is to acknowledge the fact that in this digital and modern age, internet, and mobile phones represent the dominant mode of communication. Therefore, it only makes sense to prosecute people, who assault others knowingly with the medium of technology and internet (Trager, p. 553). In fact, Lori Drew’s prosecution becomes needful and realistic also because her actions towards Megan fall under the umbrella of “Hate Crime”. She did not target Megan unintentionally or at random, but her intentions of targeting Megan were clear. Furthermore, Drew’s actions also fall under the umbrella of harassment because she was also invading the personal privacy of Megan. Even the Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recognize the importance of personal privacy (Brenner & Megan, p. 15). Furthermore, from a legal perspective, technically, it is not possible or feasible for the courts to hold someone accountable for their texts, messages, or conversations with someone, even if they committed suicide due to those conversations (Long, p. 28). However, if a robber were to enter a bank and terrorize people and if someone died while the robbery was taking place then the robber would also be charged with murder because the murder aroused from the felony. Similarly, when a college girl committed suicide because a sex-tape of her leaked online, her dorm roommate who designed the plan of recording her sexual intercourse with another man without her permission was prosecuted. In any other case, that college student would not have been prosecuted, but she committed a felony through recording her roommate without her permission and then posting that video online. Therefore, the actions and consequences of the felony, including the suicide of that student, were on the hands of her roommate (Tokunaga, p. 277). Similarly, in this case, Lori Drew committed a felony through disguising herself as “Josh” on MySpace. Therefore, all of the actions and consequences, which include the suicide of Megan, Lori Drew should remain accountable for all of them. She remains solely responsible for ending a life, which was full of promise and potential. It is important here to acknowledge that in several cases of cyber bullying, it is always troublesome to identify the bullies, link all of the cyber activity with them, and prove harmful intent and knowledge about the consequences of the action and ability to comprehend them fully. Furthermore, critics of cyber bullying laws argue that prosecuting cyber bullies is not practical because it is difficult to establish a link between the messages and conversation between the bully and the victim and the alleged harm inflicted on the victim. They argue that laws, which criminalize cyber bullying, would incite cases where several people would line up to claim that some message on the internet from a random person incited them to inflict harm on themselves or commit suicide (Auerbach, p. 1641). However, in this case, there is a clear causation and link. Lori Drew, as an adult and as a mother of a teenage daughter, knew the full weight of their actions and decisions. She engaged in the petty practice of bullying Megan despite knowing all about their condition and vulnerabilities. Even if Megan had committed suicide after reading the last text from “Josh”, who stated that, “The world would be a better place without you”, Lori could not have been held accountable enough to lead to prosecution. However, she want a step further and used those private conversations, to which Megan contributed because she thought that she was talking to “Josh” and spread them around to defame Megan (Bhat, p. 53). Conclusion The paper does not argue the creation of new laws regarding cyber bullying or bullying for that matter of fact and it does not argue that all the bullies should face prosecution. As mentioned earlier that most of bullies and their victims are minors, teenagers and young children should do not understand the full weight of their decisions and actions (Brenner & Megan, p. 15). Many people that came across the news of the death of Megan wanted Lori Drew to face prosecution, regardless of whatever the charges. Some even argued that she should face the maximum penalty for forging the identity of a young boy on an online networking site and then taunting a young girl. However, if the prosecution of Lori Drew takes place on the above-mentioned ground, then the same will lead to a slippery slope, from where the court will find itself in the ocean of people claiming similar treatment for their bullies or other people for forging identities and taunting them on the internet. There is a clear difference between banter and torture. Furthermore, any such legislation or decision would put a serious dent on the freedom of speech of individuals (Brenner & Megan, p. 15). Therefore, it is important here to identify and highlight that this paper argues in the favor of prosecution of Lori Drew but not because she forged a fake identity or faked information on her profile or taunted a teenage girl, but because she committed a felony and was well aware of the full weight of her actions. From the beginning, she was aware of the consequences of her decisions and actions and she was aware of the volatile mental condition of Megan and despite this information, she went on to bully her and then use those conversation to make a mockery out of her (Tokunaga, p. 277). Works Cited Auerbach, S. “Screening out cyberbullies: Remedies for victims on the Internet playground.” Cardozo Law Review. Volume 30, 2008, pp. 1641. Bhat, C. S. “Cyber bullying: Overview and strategies for school counselors, guidance officers, and all school personnel.” Australian Journal of Guidance and Counseling. Volume 18, No. 1, 2008, pp. 53-66. Brenner, S. W., & Megan R. Kiddie. “Crime: the Utility of Criminal Law in Controlling Cyberbullying. First Amendment Law Review. Volume 8, 2009, p. 1-17. Long, C. “Silencing cyberbullies.” NEA Today. Volume 26, No. 8, 2008, pp. 28-29. Tokunaga, R. S. “Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimization.” Computers in Human Behavior. Volume 26, No. 3, 2010, pp. 277-287. Trager, D. B. “New Tricks for Old Dogs: The Tinker Standard Applied to Cyber-Bullying.” Journal of Law and Education. Volume 38, 2009, pp. 553-571. Read More