Overcriminalization

Student Charged With Manslaughter for Texting Boyfriend to 'Go Die'

The 21-year-old faces criminal punishment for text messages to her suicidal boyfriend.

|

Massachusetts prosecutors persist in attempting to hold young women responsible for the conduct of troubled young men. This week, the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office announced criminal charges against 21-year-old Inyoung You, for allegedly being so mean to her boyfriend that he committed suicide. 

You has been indicted on charges of involuntary manslaughter. Her case echoes the 2017 prosecution of Bristol County, Massachusetts, teenager Michelle Carter, who was convicted of involuntary manslaughter after she sent pro-suicide messages to her depressed boyfriend, who later killed himself. She was 17 and he was 18 at the time.

In the present case, 22-year-old Alexander Urtula committed suicide this past May, on the same day he was supposed to graduate from Boston College. Urtula and You had been dating for 18 months, according to Suffolk District Attorney Rachael Rollins. In the months leading up to his death, You allegedly sent Urtula 47,000 text messages, including some that said things like "go kill yourself" and "go die."

Rollins accused You of making "demands and threats" and having "complete and total control over Mr. Urtula both mentally and emotionally." 

You, a South Korean national who was also studying at Boston College, is currently back in her native country. Rollins said prosecutors were talking with attorneys about her coming back voluntarily but would start extradition proceedings otherwise. 

That's right—a prosecutor is willing to extradite You back from South Korea for supposedly texting her boyfriend to death. 

In this case, as with Carter, the cruel messages certainly don't speak highly of the sender. Urging a depressed loved one to kill themselves rather than seek help is appalling—and perhaps Carter and You are both just monsters. But it's not unimaginable that urging a suicidal partner to go through with it could be a misguided attempt at compassion, if the sender was also struggling with depression or heartbroken at watching a loved one's long suffering. (Carter's lawyers blamed her behavior in part on antidepressants.) 

Dealing with someone close to you in the throes of serious mental illness can be a hugely taxing and confusing situation even for seasoned adults—and in these instances, we're talking about 17 to 22 year olds.

Do we really want to start criminally prosecuting people for not handling these situations so well? Or to start locking people up for cruel words if the receiver happens to do something drastic? 

We don't know the state of You and Urtula's relationship and we don't know what kinds of things he had been saying to her when she told him to "go die." 

But phrases like that aren't uncommon during nasty breakups. They can be (and usually are) rhetorical. A heat-of-the-moment response to some sort of provocation. The bitter pushback of someone treated poorly by a partner for too long. A plea to be left alone. A means of belittling. Or a horrid instruction. In short: highly contextual. Not the kind of thing folks like police and prosecutors have a great history with sorting out.  

It's perhaps telling that so far, the two people charged for these pro-suicide text crimes are young women in relationships with male partners. The prosecutions of Carter and You play into tropes about young seductresses and the cruel sway they can have over helpless male targets. In both cases, the state has portrayed the young women as purely evil narcissists and wielders of unimaginable power over poor, enraptured young men. 

It's a worrying trend.

Cases like these make criminals out of troubled teens and young adults, run counter to our current legal understandings of free speech, and represent a ridiculously over-punitive reaction. Which means that, unfortunately, they're right in keeping with our country's general attitude toward anything involving young people, relationships, and technology. 

Advertisement

NEXT: Trump Administration Seeks Supreme Court Review of California "Sanctuary State" Case

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It’s always easy to condemn women and excuse prosecutorial over-reach right up until the point they are LITERALLY coming for You.

    1. Now that is out of the way, on the one hand, it is definitely BS that the government is stepping in to regulate the terms of a nasty break-up. In my younger days, I would shrug and say “This is why you have judicial leniency- technically this person may have broken the law [1], but the context goes so far to mitigate the crime, that a Judge should sentence them to time served.”

      However, I have come to understand that a) the process is the punishment and b) the consequences of having a conviction like this on your record are far beyond anything that a judge can reasonably mitigate due to the restrictions we put on felons for the rest of their life.

      My final point to make is that this is a perfect example of what happens when we set the expectation that our government ought to be protecting us from mean people. Whether it is forcing jerks to bake a cake, dealing with bullies, chasing down sinners, or whatever, this punitive excess is just unreal. It is bad enough that Twitter Mobs can “cancel” our jobs and livelihoods for bad behavior. And yet government can cancel our freedom and even our lives.

      1. I think you make a reasonable case. The problem is this woman was so extreme and so awful, that this might be that rare case where it really is and should be a crime. It is really a case of a bad case making bad law. I don’t like the precedent at all. But I think the facts are so outrageous that it is depraved indifference.

        1. it is depraved indifference.

          That’s certainly a decent description of her behavior. Whether it’s criminal, I don’t know. It does seem like the precedent could lead to some bad law.

        2. Thing is – are we going to start imposing duties on each other to care for each other? Legal duties?

          I don’t think a girlfriend has – or should have – a legal duty of care for a boyfriend. As such, the ‘depraved indifference’ is not different than stepping over a convulsing man on the sidewalk.

          Morally reprehensible – but making it *illegal* is a dangerous step.

          1. Also, there’s the dude’s personal responsibility. If this chick is so awful then just leave already.

            1. Then how do you feel about those suicide games that popped up a while back the ones where people would encourage strangers to commit suicide and film it. We don’t know the full context of the relationship but I feel like she was well aware of the control she had over him and if her intention was to have him commit suicide she deserves punishment.

              1. 1. They don’t exist.

                2. Can you show what harm they have caused?

                3. If you can be goaded into suicide *by a stranger* – you were already dead.

                4. If my intention is for you to win a million dollars in the lottery, does my saying ‘go buy a ticket’ entitle me to a portion of the winnings?

      2. But if you read the story its heavily implied that she was responsible for his depression in the first place and acted abusive towards him. I guarantee if this had been a case of a woman killing herself after being abused by her husband everyone would believe he deserves prison. This is just double standards being defended by those who benefit from them.

        1. If only there was a way to block someone from sending you txt messages.

    2. You are missing the point BADLY! The point is that politicians and other crooks are VASTLY overacting and doing harm by doing so. The average prosecutor (read “persecutor” ) wants SOMEBODY blamed and or jailed no matter WHAT the facts are. When I was a young man I had more than one girl tell me to “FOAD” and even I, the supposed victim, would have though prosecuting these girls an absurdity. I am wondering if the ascent of Trump is even worse than the assent of Hillary would have been. We the people are the bosses, whether pols like it or not, and we MUST star putting these overarching and evil laws and prosecutors (read persecutors) in their places. WE THE PEOPLE are the ultimate bosses, and we need to start voting OUT of office the kind of creeps mentioned in this article.

  2. >>being so mean to her boyfriend that he committed suicide.

    not a crime.

    1. But switch the roles, and it’s a Title IX violation.

      1. If he makes $0.23 more per hour than her, we need to take drastic action to remedy the inequity. If he’s 2X more likely take his own life than her, we need to tread cautiously in prosecuting these women who were harassing them so we don’t violate anyone’s civil rights.

        1. Well, statistically he would have died first anyway.

  3. That’s right—a prosecutor is willing to extradite You back from South Korea

    Well the joke’s on him. I’m in New Jersey, which is more like North Korea.

    1. Agreed lol can’t wait to escape this nightmare.

  4. “The prosecutions of Carter and You play into tropes about young seductresses and the cruel sway they can have over helpless male targets.” Whatever. If Carter and You were the victims, then it would be this plays into tropes about evil callous men and the cruel dominance they can have over helpless female targets. So, I don’t see how this “telling” of anything ENB. At the end of the day, it simply about state power being used for the same reason it is almost always used by prosecutors…to get highly publicized cases that allows them to climb the ladder.

    1. I accidentally flagged your post, sorry about that.

      I agree with this! As feminist as I may be, I think if the tables were turned and two females had committed suicide after their boyfriends instructed them to do so the media frenzy would be much worse.

      1. I agree and I feel these cases are highlighting a real behavioral issue we see in some young girls now. You probably thought nothing of the texts because she thinks he’s horrible enough that the worlds better off without him. I knew someone in a relationship that seems identical to the one described. The girlfriend in that relationship would constantly conflate things like not texting back immediately to abuse but the guy was too afraid of being alone to disagree. Eventually she drove me and all his other friends away just as the article claims You did.

    2. ENB can really play in to the ‘the law is persecuting women’ bandwagon. Maybe those things shouldn’t be illegal, but they propably should ruin the accused life provided evidence they actually did this. It is not like radical feminists weren’t ruinning lifes without evidence, you know.

      1. (I mean, I wouldn’t find unfair If she was expelled from her college and was unable to find a job ever again, You know.)

  5. You allegedly sent Urtula 47,000 text messages, including some that said things like “go kill yourself” and “go die.”

    47,000 texts. I’d ghost her just for that.

    1. I read, ‘47,000 texts in several months’ and immediately thought, ‘Holy Shit!’. Then I read ‘a South Korean national’ and thought ‘Nevermind.’

    2. Yeah, I’m really baffled as to how the defense’s case won’t just amount to “he could have blocked her at literally any point.” Or any of a hundred other pertinent and exculpating observations.

      1. I think he had genuine feelings for her and she knew that and used it to her advantage pulling him back in whenever he considered “ghosting” her. A lot of guys today think they will never find another girlfriend because of their low self-esteem and her abuse of that is inexcusable.

  6. Go catch some real criminals why dontcha.

  7. Oh, I’m a little old country boy
    Just a young’un in my teens
    I don’t gamble, drink or swear
    And she did this to me

  8. Carter’s lawyers blamed her behavior in part on antidepressants.

    What?! Not on kimchi?!

    1. Not enough kimchi, obviously. She needed that enzyme, according to Dear Leader Un.

      1. Nice racism you got going there.

        1. Way to completely miss the point, in your ignorance, Hihn. Oh but of course it was a jab at your beloved leader so you deflect.

  9. You has been indicted on charges of involuntary manslaughter.

    A sentence that appears ungrammatical, and yet it isn’t.

    1. The name makes this whole affair come off like a Laurel and Hardy routine.

      1. More like Abbot and Costello.

        1. That’s who I meant.

          1. I know. Third base!

            1. For 47,000 texts, he’d better have gotten past third.

  10. Suffolk District Attorney Rachael Rollins

    #BelieveAllWomen

  11. Buddy Holly– I hope you freeze to death.
    Waylon Jennings– Well, I hope your plane crashes.

    People say things like that all the time. I’m told that Waylon suffered from frequent nightmares and horrific guilt for over a decade. If he’d been prosecuted, it would’ve been far worse.
    Why do so many District Attorneys seem to want to cause as much suffereing as possible?

    1. Yeah people do. But that is not what happened here. This wasn’t an off hand remark. This was thousands of remarks over a period of weeks that culminated in her telling him to jump when he was on the ledge.

      I understand how you can see this both ways. But, don’t pretend that the facts are not what they are.

      1. No no John, he provoked her into harassing him with 47,000 text messages telling him to kill himself. She’s the real victim here.

        1. There were something like 70K text messages between the two of them. She had more but he had quite a few as well.

      2. So….The devil made her do it the first time, the second time she did it on her own?

        /Waylon

      3. 47,000 singular incidents and not crimes.

        1. So if telling someone over and over again to kill themselves and then telling them to jump when they are on the ledge about to do it is not reckless disregard and depraved indifference, what is?

          1. acting in some fashion beyond words.

            1. Bullshit. Lots of mere words can be crimes. Libel is mere words. Fraud is mere words.

              1. Fraud is your lack of due diligence to my lies … Libel is a civil matter

                i’m a little more free with words being words than most. your actions are your actions. there’s nowhere for you to draw the line on the Nth text being a crime.

                1. Libel is a crime in some states.

                  1. sorry John I had to leave yesterday. my answer would be libel should not be a crime in any state.

                2. i’m a little more free with words being words than most. your actions are your actions. there’s nowhere for you to draw the line on the Nth text being a crime.

                  You’re just more self-serving and/or (im)morally convenient. You do, in fact draw a line between speech and action, just not here.

                  1. i can be a speech absolutist and at the same time not worry whether you think i’m moral … and i do understand your NAP argument below … the action argument was the sending/receipt of the texts not the words – 47,000 “bake me a cakes” might have had the same effect who knows

                    1. But, again, you’re acting like you’re not drawing (or absolved yourself of having to make a distinction about speech) a line when you are.

                      What if she’d only sent 46,000 ‘bake me a cake’ messages?

                      That message and any resulting action it elicits are unrelated violates some pretty fundamental laws of physics and information theory; which libertarianism is by no means bound by but, at some point, they could or do have to reconcile.

                3. Libel is a civil matter

                  Also, reducing deaths to civil matters and vice versa is not exactly a libertarian idea. The only person who can definitively know if You violated the NAP is dead. Not to say that he’s the sole arbiter, but that government and criminal law exists for the same reason the NAP exists.

                4. there’s nowhere for you to draw the line on the Nth text being a crime.

                  Making distinctions in fuzzy matters are what juries are for.

        2. I think it was Verizon.

  12. She was sending him text messages telling him to kill himself right up to when he was standing on the ledge ready to jump. She knew he was on the ledge and if the government is to be believed texted him to jump.

    This case is a lot closer than ENB makes it sound. It is one thing to say mean things to someone. It is quite another to stalk someone telling them to kill themselves and continue to do so right up until they jump off the ledge. I don’t think it is unreasonable to call that involuntary manslaughter. Even if you disagree, this is not a case of just criminalizing someone who said a few mean things to a person who later committed suicide. This is about as an extreme example as you could get.

    1. Any indication that he asked her to stop texting or stop texting depressing or pro-suicidal messages?

      Seems like if they’d had consensual sex and she moped around for months with buyer’s remorse and eventually committed suicide, we’d at least look into charging the guy with a sexual assault.

  13. But phrases like that aren’t uncommon during nasty breakups. They can be (and usually are) rhetorical. A heat-of-the-moment response to some sort of provocation.

    47,000 messages was a heat-of-the-moment response. And of course he brought it on himself. He obviously provoked her to harass him with 47,000 messages.

    God I hope this stupid bitch dies of syphilis soon.

    1. I can see how someone could think that this case should not be a crime. What annoys me about ENB is that she refuses to see it for the horrible behavior that it was. There is no defending this chick. She is an evil bitch. The best you can say about her is that her actions because of larger concerns are not a crime. But you can be an evil worthless bitch without being a criminal.

      1. Yeah, I mean, look at Hillary Clin… hey, look at the time… gotta go (please don’t suicide me.)

  14. It’s perhaps telling that so far, the two people charged for these pro-suicide text crimes are young women in relationships with male partners.

    Yeah it is. Men aren’t fucking psychopathic vindictive pieces of subhuman shit. Women are. By the way, go kill yourself you stupid cunt.

    1. It would be telling if there were women who committed suicide like this whose boyfriends were not charged. That hasn’t happened that I am aware of. So, the only thing this tells is that yes young girls really are evil as fuck sometimes.

    2. Oh fuck off, this shit comes from both sexes and all the other 19 or so sexes, don’t be an incel.

    3. “Men aren’t fucking psychopathic vindictive pieces of subhuman shit. Women are.”

      Every murderous dictator of the 20th Century would like a word with you.

      Seriously though, this statement explains a lot about your mindset. Doesn’t explain why you kept getting banned a few weeks back though. Why was that?

  15. 47,000 text messages and the author has the audacity to say “We don’t know the state of You and Urtula’s relationship and we don’t know what kinds of things he had been saying to her when she told him to “go die.””.

    *Of course* the author is a woman and *of course* that woman is ENB.

  16. “Dealing with someone close to you in the throes of serious mental illness can be a hugely taxing and confusing situation even for seasoned adults—and in these instances, we’re talking about 17 to 22 year olds.”

    However, those people have been old enough to elect permanent, life changing surgery and drug treatments that will leave them sterile for life for the past decade.
    She is old enough to kill a baby, why not a ‘big baby’?
    A little proportion please.

  17. The New York Times has an editorial board position open for this young lady.

  18. Wow, I don’t even have the heart to joke about the defendant’s name, so sad.

  19. At what point does the behavior become torture and do all sides really want a government that is morally agnostic to torture at all levels even when a case of it is plainly laid out at it’s feet?

    Not saying she tortured him, not saying the government should/shouldn’t torture people, not saying executive torture = judicial torture. Just asking that *if* she’d tortured him in a purely psychological manner does libertarianism really say “Not a violation of property rights, not a violation of NAP, not a problem.”?

    1. I think this lives somewhere in the NAP gray areas. Saying “turn blue and die” to a random someone who cuts you off in traffic is one, thing. Exhibiting a rather nasty disposition toward morbidity on behalf of another person over a period of months might be interpreted as encouraging-harm-to-intend-harm.

      1. I think this lives somewhere in the NAP gray areas.

        Kinda what I was getting at. I think the people saying ‘The government has no role here, no crime was committed.’ are wrong, speaking definitively and authoritatively about a case that isn’t well define and from an unprincipled position that lacks any real authority.

  20. So according to this blog about the US – South Korea extradition treaty:

    “Article 2(1) defines an extraditable offense as one punishable under the laws in both Contracting States by deprivation of liberty for a period of more than one year, or by a more severe penalty. Use of such a “dual criminality” clause rather than a list of offenses covered by the Treaty, as was the case in older treaties, obviates the need to renegotiate or supplement the Treaty as additional offenses become punishable under the law of both Contracting States….

    “In keeping with most recently negotiated U.S. extradition treaties, Article 2(3) further provides that in determining whether an offense is an offense under the law of the requested State, the conduct of the person shall be examined by taking into account the totality of the conduct alleged against the person, and will be considered an extraditable offense: whether or not the laws in the Contracting States place the offense within the same category of offenses or describe the offense by the same terminology; whether or not the constituent elements of the offense differ under the laws in the Contracting States, provided that the offenses under the laws of both States are substantially analogous….

    “Article 3 provides that while neither Contracting State shall be bound to extradite its own nationals, the Requested State has the power to do so. It provides further that if extradition is refused solely on the basis of the nationality of the person sought, the Requested State shall, at the request of the Requesting State, submit the case of its authorities for prosecution. Nationality is to be determined at the time of the commission of the offense for which extradition is requested.”

    https://internationalextraditionblog.com/2011/05/13/korea-extradition-treaty-with-the-united-states/

    This may develop into a complicated case in South Korea, who knows?

  21. I don’t know if this relevant but

    “Korea’s suicide rate, attributable to its high-stress society, is among the highest in the world….

    “South Korea has the highest suicide rate in the world for children ages 10-19 and extremely high elderly (60+) suicide rates. For children, most suicides are caused by stress relating to education. Korean children have a school year of 11 months and often spend over 16 hours a day at school and at afterschool programs called hagwons. All this studying is done to get into the top three universities in South Korea, all of which are known for their miniscule acceptance rates. Family prestige and honor are often tied to where children go to university, and many adolescents take their own lives out of that stress….

    “According to Euromonitor International, South Koreans are the world’s largest consumers of hard liquor, with the average Korean adult taking an average of 14 shots a week. This is especially shocking when compared to the U.S., where the average amount is three shots per week. Heavy drinking in South Korea is directly tied to its culture of hard work – most people justify taking up to 10 shots a night with the need to relax. Alcoholism costs the South Korean over $2bn a year and is the cause of thousands of deaths each year. Roughly 40% of those who attempt suicide do so while drunk. While deadly, alcohol abuse is seen as more socially acceptable than psychiatric visits to treat mental illnesses.”

    https://bpr.berkeley.edu/2017/10/31/the-scourge-of-south-korea-stress-and-suicide-in-korean-society/

  22. Y’all realize that this argument basically amounts to “there’s nothing wrong with entrapment”, right?

    1. Interesting. I see what you mean, but I’m not sure it’s completely parallel. Regulating the behavior of government agents, including their speech on the job is not unreasonable. Is it entrapment if a private person encourages someone to, say, procure some drugs when they normally wouldn’t?

      1. It would make entrapment more like structuring, where it’s only a crime because regulations saying it’s a crime, but acknowledging that the underlying behavior (persuading someone to commit harm/crime, depositing $9,999 into the bank) has no moral/ethical problems.

        Or in other words… unless you want to argue that entrapment is not a moral wrong, only a regulatory wrong, then we are acknowledging that using one’s influence on others does sometimes implicate the persuader in that person’s actions.

  23. Clearly no one should be allowed to have access to such a violent and deadly device as a cell phone, or a diabolical delivery system like the internet.
    Ban them both.

  24. A. People like to tell others what to do.

    B. People like to take credit for what others do.

    C. What’s the problem here?

  25. “the state has portrayed the young women as purely evil narcissists and wielders of unimaginable power over poor, enraptured young men”
    So, what comes around goes around?

    1. There is an obvious obscene pronoun joke… No! I can’t bring myself to type it.

    2. I thought the same thing, Tony.

  26. “texting her boyfriend to death”

    If I’d known that was possible, I’d have committed many mass textings by now.

    1. When are we finally going to have the political courage to stand up to the texting lobby and have a national dialogue on common sense texting control? Outlaw assault texts! Outlaw texts of more than 10 characters! Ban bump stock keyboards!

      1. “Ban bump stock keyboards!”

        Reason already has; been busted by the ‘you’re posting too rapidly’ error message yet?

  27. I think we’re all over-looking the fact that You sent the guy 46,000 texts telling him what a horrible piece of shit he was and how he should just kill himself – and he kept reading them. Even when he’s standing on the ledge ready to jump and he hears that little twirrble that tells him he’s got a text, he’s got to interrupt his suicide to check his messages.

    Obviously, the real evil here is smart-phones and texting and our conditioning to omnipresent availability. I think I smell a huge lawsuit against Samsung, Google, Verizon and the Alexander Graham Bell estate on the wind.

  28. Continuously poking a mentally ill person and telling him to kill himself is a crime. It’s manslaughter 1. It’s just that simple. Whether it’s text or following him around and saying it.

    1. Well then. Don’t do it. Are we done here?

    2. Who is mentally ill? How often do you have to text someone to kill himself or herself before it is manslaughter 1? Maybe call it harrassment 15 or something, but it’s not manslaughter.

  29. I’m always fascinated by people who base their opinions about criminal cases on statements released by police and prosecutors.

    You all understand that prosecutors and police are habitual liars who regularly spread false information to justify charges before hiding like cowards behind their qualified and absolute immunity. Reporters generally broadcast these lies because it makes for better click bait. ENB is the rare exception who actually fact checks, or applies a reasonable level of skepticism to the statements of a group that literally never tells the truth.

    Regardless of the accuracy of the claims, the women is obviously toast due to America’s unquenchable lust for locking people in cages. That addiction will override any reasonable doubt of expectations of due process. T
    hat’s why be consistently elect sociopaths as prosecutors and Sheriffs. Our addiction to incarceration is so strong that we require cops and prosecutors to tell us a good yarn to make us feel good about destroying another humans life
    Knowing this, prosecutors and police regularly lie to smear people prior to the trial (or more accurately coercive plea deal). They know once the American people with no skin in the game start jonesing to lock someone in a cage against their will they’ll stop asking a lot of silly Constitutional questions.

    1. Absolute Immunity for prosecutors and judges… an absolute travesty of justice. There is a DA in my home county that I have been up against on three occasions in criminal cases. ALL THREE TIMES, he has either directly hidden that certain evidence even existed, refused to turn over evidence that even he acknowledged did exist, or claimed that evidence did not exist (that provably did exist) without even looking to see if it was available or not. Judges refuse to hold them to account, as does the State Bar. And I can’t take this $#!+ into Federal Court because of absolute immunity.

      Fortunately, my 1983 clients have not been severely affected by qualified immunity much. Partly because of well drafted complaints. Partly because of good facts in those cases. Partly because of a local Federal bench that seems to look to give the average Joe his fair day in court when the State tramples on the rights of the little guy. Still, the whole idea that just because no one else has been screwed over by “first to file on that fact pattern” is really contrary to the plain language written into Section 1983. Praying that the SCOTUS eventually overturns that travesty of case law that provides this free pass to corrupt institutions as long as they are “innovative” in how they trample on their local citizens.

    2. ENB is the rare exception who actually fact checks, or applies a reasonable level of skepticism to the statements of a group that literally never tells the truth.

      This is a misportrayal. Not wrong in that she readily fact checks prosecutors and police but selectively portraying her as better. What makes ENB’s stance patently absurd isn’t that she goes after prosecutors as much as she stands behind literal (and not alleged) theives, rapists, and murderers long after it’s clear that they are more deplorable than even she believes and portrays and when doing so represents no principled stance against police, prosecutors, or the system. It’s one thing to hold DA’s accountable, it’s quite another to rather flatly state that because a DA might be corrupt, a serial rapist and murderer apprehended at the scene with their pants down and blood on their hands should go free. Or otherwise exempting known criminals from the law because of reasons that *she feels* the law should take into account and didn’t (while also ignoring more directly involved parties’ feelings and input).

      1. She doesn’t apply a reasonable level of skepticism. It’s a broken clock level of skepticism. She just happens to be kept in business more than twice a day by an active police force/state. That doesn’t necessarily make her close to correct close to a majority of the time it just makes her more right than your average broken clock.

Please to post comments