Decius wrote:

Mike the Usurper wrote:
Considering the participants in this case live a few blocks over, I'll give you an entirely different take.

The county prosecutor should have handled this the same way they would have had this happened in a local park. This would fall under some variety of child endangerment. It wasn't done that way because it happened on the internet and oooohhhh... that's a big place.

Bullshit. She knew exactly what she was doing, and tried to fuck with the neighbor kid's head because her kid wasn't popular enough. Well she succeeded and the neighbor kid is dead. This isn't ex-post facto, this is an adult knowing damn well what she was doing, and there are laws on the books that cover it, they just don't say "internet" because the laws were written decades ago.

This is important. If you're elected, in theory, you could work on legislation related to this.

What laws are on the books that would have covered this if they were meeting in a park? Why does the use of the internet make them inapplicable to this situation?

If we had a good understanding of exactly what she should have been charged with and why she can't be charged with it, than we know exactly what ought to be done.

I would have expected a filing under Missouri 568.050 "(1) He or she with criminal negligence acts in a manner that creates a substantial risk to the life, body or health of a child less than seventeen years old;" or under Missouri 568.045 "(1) The person knowingly acts in a manner that creates a substantial risk to the life, body, or health of a child less than seventeen years old;" So long as the incident occurs within the jurisdiction then it applies. I would have argued this the same way they handle such incidents when they occur by phone, that the actual routing doesn't make any difference.

The reason the internet makes a difference is because the "exchanges" happened via the California servers, and therefore the incident was in California, not here. That is why is was not pressed here, and is a pile of crap. If the same happened via phone and the switchboard is in St Louis, it becomes a St Louis incident? No. The fact that it happened over the internet means the crime is wherever the servers are? Again, no.

Having been over every report on this I could find, this was a case where the person charged knew what she was doing (she didn't have this as an intended result, but that's a different question) and was deliberately trying to mess with the neighbor's child. The difference between the case we're talking about and that of the alleged Texas-Cheerleader Murdering Mom was a matter of intent and use of the internet. She didn't mean for her to kill herself and given some of the information that has come out that's a MAYBE.

In the meantime, the state stalking law, Missouri 565.225 was updated so that it clearly would apply to future cases.

In any case, I think an adult telling a 13 year old, that they have spent weeks manipulating, the world would be a better place is she weren't in it, fits easily under the prior endangerment statute.

RE: Former Justice Dept. Prosecutor Joins Defense in MySpace Suicide Case | Threat Level