By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Machiavellian said:
Zkuq said:
Ignoring whether what she did is or should be a crime, what she did was certainly not 'involuntary manslaughter', which is what she was convicted for. Well, at least unless involuntary manslaughter is defined in a really bizarre way in the law.

Reading the definition of involuntary manslaughter, I would say that she definitely broke the law.  She was a main catalyst to his death.  The reason she did not get the voluntary is because she did not assist with his death.  Here are the 3 conditions for involuntary manslaughter

 1.    Someone was killed as a result of the defendant's actions.

2.    The act either was inherently dangerous to others or done with reckless disregard for human life.

 

3.    The defendant knew or should have known his or her conduct was a threat to the lives of others.

Hmm. Those are some pretty broad definitions, because I bet they weren't written with verbal actions in mind but they definitely allow an interpretation where the actions can be verbal. Seems like bad legal writing to me.