Trolls can now be sent to prison

[Alby_da_Wolf]

sapphi_snake said:

Alby_da_Wolf said:

If he cannot be cured, then he can't be considered 100% responsible of the terrible way he deals with social life and communication.

But actually, despite Asperger can't be "healed", often its worst effects can be "cured", as people affected can learn, in a more mechanical way, but they still can, and living in a more civil enviroment can help them a lot to behave better.

About the relevance of the bullying case, had his case stayed confined within exclusively what he did, then nothing else would be relevant, but in the very moment they want to make him an example against a broader range of trolling, bullying and harassment, then many more other cases become relevant and making just his case an example looks wrong. Natasha's parents don't blame bullies exclusively, but saying they were amongst many factors contributing to her suicide they surely don't absolve them. And obviously, as they bullied her directly and verbally, not online, they didn't leave evidences to build a case, unless other students testify against them, but I wouldn't count on it. So we can only hope nobody else commit suicide and should other students kill themselves, it looks like people and judges will be happy to prosecute just cyberbullies and leave real life bullies free, it's easier. What a wonderful world...

Finally, I don't believe in making an example of a few cases hoping they become a deterrent, I prefer that as many offenders as possible are caught and sentenced, it's a far better way to lower crime rate. USA still believe in exemplary cases and guess what, they still have a horribly high crime rate.

1. I said that there may not even be something to be 'cured'. Meaning that not every criminal action is the result of a 'mental illness'. And why can't he be held 100% responsible for his actions? As I said, he was probably evaluated by a psychiatrist, who did not come to the conclusion that his Aspergers was a majro factor in this issue.

2. I also don't see what you would like to e done exactly? You need proof to prosecute someone. No complaint was filed against those girls by anyone (you kinda need to signal that a crime took place), and we don't really even know the nature of the bullying. This guy was prosecuted and sentenced because he was reported, caught, and there was evidence against him. And what this guy did was plain harassment, not trolling. Not every troll is a harasser.

1. Is the inability to have a "normal" social life a normal condition? It can be one of the effects of Asperger syndrome, it can have different degrees of seriousness and there are treatments to improve the life of the patient. About being evaluated, how thorough or superficial was the visit? Because most probably, pleading guilty led the trial to an abbreviated form.

2. I'd like that wanting  an exemplary case, judges asked the police to investigate in every direction, trying to identify as many online trolls and harassers as possible and punish them, each one in proportion to the wrong done, if penally relevant, and, as Natasha's parents said she was bullied before her death, and I think they don't take that matter lightly, nor that they amplify accusations, as her father even had words of pity for Duffy, a thorough investigation should have been done in that direction too. Police can investigate also on a suspicion, if it's reasonably founded and if it would be very serious if true, not just on a precise formal report. It's not mandatory and it's up to detectives' instinct and experience, without a formal report, but if suspicion was founded and nothing is done, there could be other serios troubles, even suicides.