He surely did something VERY wrong! It's just that amongst all the people that bullied or trolled those dead teens, he's the one that could have done it with least consciousness of the consequences of his actions on others' feelings, let's just accept he's guilty because he was conscious enough, still it's wrong to choose right him as an exemplary case. And given his conditions and what he did, surely he shouldn't be left free, even if totally unconscious, mandatory treatment would still be necessary to protect both him and society, but even if the degree of is guilt is higher the time of the sentence should be spent curing and rehabilitating him, closing him in a jail without adequate cures will just make him worse.The father himself of one of the victims stated he feels anger and indignation, but also pity for him.

BTW, Duffy himself asked the judges to consider three other cases where he trolled dead younsters http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/man-jailed-for-memorial-abuse-posts-2354073.html Why? Does he realise he fell into an obsession he can't control and want to be stopped?

About those girls, we don't know how small or big was their contribution to push Natasha to suicide, but they had some, and bigger than Sean Duffy's one, as he had absolutely no part in it. So, again, it looks wrong that just his case become the exemplary one.

There may simply be nothing to cure. If you're talking about the Asperger syndrome, I already mentioned that that cannot be cured. He was also surely evaluated by a psychiatrist before the trial, and the psychiatrist obviously didn't see any need to reccomend treatment.

And Duffy asked the judges to consider 3 other offences, which I have no ideea why he did. He only dug his grave deeper (unless he really wanted to go to jail).

Also, Duffy didn't contribute at all to Natasha's suicide, he contributed to the harassment of her parents, which is what he was tried and sentenced for. This is why I said that bringing up those girls was irrelevant. These are simply 2 separate matters. And speaking of those girls, no complaints against them were filed, and it's unlikely there's any evidence to build a case (unlike in the case of Duffy). And even Narasha's parents didn't blame them for her death. They just said they were one of many factors that cobntributed to Natasha's deicsion to kill herself.

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.

1. I find it hard to believe that harassing parents of kid that killed themselves is an effect of Aspergers.

2. The judge can't tell the police what to investigate, he/she just judges the suspect's who are prosecuted. And the police don't 'investigate on suspicion' in cases like these.

1. From what I read it could be a mitigating factor, he could not understand when sick black humour is inappropriate, or the limit beyond which from just inappropriate becomes cruel and/or harassing. He could also have developed an obsessive interest and repetitive routine in doing that.

2. Obviously the judges just judge prosecuted people, after police found enough evidences for a trial or caught the culprit in the act, but police can do preliminary and cautionary investigations on the basis of founded suspicion, and I'm 100% sure Natasha's parents didn't talk lightly about bullying, although they said they didn't know the names of the bullies, but just the name of their clique.

After reading both your posts I think that's exactly what Alby is getting at. The legal system is flawed. The true culprits (the girls) got away with nothing and it'll probably stay that way in the future. Go world!